Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MARRIAGES, GRETNA GREEN,

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he now proposes to take any action for the purpose of introducing legislation to deal with the question of the registration of irregular marriages which take place at Gretna Green (Scotland), and can he give the House particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): This matter is being considered, but I am not at present in a position to give any undertaking as to legislation on the subject.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be in a position to give an answer? I have raised this matter, not only with him but with his predecessor, on two occasions.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Arising out of the original answer, can the right hon. Gentleman say if there are many irregular marriages in Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

BAYS OF HARRIS ROAD.

Mr. RAMSAY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is in a position to say when the construction of the Bays of Harris road will be put into operation and if he will see that work is begun at both ends of the road?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The question of the provision of funds to meet the cost of completing the construction of this road is being considered, but meantime I am not in a position to say when work on the road will be put in hand. The suggestion that the work should be begun
at both ends will be kept in view if and when arrangements for undertaking it are made.

Mr. RAMSAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the letter written on the 5th July, 1919, in which a promise was made that this road should be constructed; does he not consider that it is now time that it was done; and will he not do his best to expedite it?

Mr. ADAMSON: I can assure the hon. Member that this matter is receiving very careful consideration.

HORSES (GRASS SICKNESS).

Sir HARRY HOPE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a disease styled grass sickness is causing serious loss to farmers in the north-eastern counties of Scotland by death to horses; and whether he will bring skilled scientific and veterinary examination to bear on the problem in order to elucidate the cause and the cure for the illness?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I am aware that serious loss is caused by this disease, which has been the subject of investigation by the Animal Diseases Research Association for a number of years. In their investigations the Association have enlisted the services of specialists in a number of subjects which appeared to have a possible relation to this obscure disease, but up to the present time it has not been found possible to ascertain the cause or to prescribe curative treatment. The investigation is being continued.

Sir H. HOPE: Will the sight hon. Gentleman make a greater attempt to get something done, as this disease is inflicting grievous harm and loss on the farmers in this part of Scotland?

Mr. ADAMSON: This is a matter which will receive the continued attention of the Department. I can assure my hon. Friend that we realise its importance.

PIG INDUSTRY.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps are being taken by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland for the development of the pig industry in Scot-
land;and whether, when approving bylaws for pig styes, the Department of Health and Agriculture will have regard to the need for avoiding the placing of any unnecessary restrictions on the growth of the industry?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: In 1929 the Department of Agriculture set up a permanent ad hoc committee composed of representatives of the industry, bacon-curing factories and scientific workers to advise them on all questions relating to pork and bacon production. In addition to experiments at the agricultural colleges, research work on pig feeding and breeding is in progress at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, and the Animal Breeding Research Department, Edinburgh University. This work is being developed with the aid of a grant from the Empire Marketing Fund. The confirmation of by-laws for pig styes, made under Section 35 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, rests with the Department of Health for Scotland, and in terms of Section 185 of that Act, the Department are required, before granting confirmation to any proposed by-laws, to consider any objections that may be submitted to them within the prescribed period by any persons who may be aggrieved. Any objections that may be so made on the ground that the by-laws would impose unnecessary restrictions on the growth of the industry will receive the Department's consideration.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if something can be done to minimise the risk of asphyxiation which we are suffering at the moment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have given instructions that the windows shall be opened.

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Mr. MILLAR: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the stocks of last year's potatoes which are still held by Scottish potato growers and merchants at the present date?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Returns received by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland from 762 large growers and merchant-growers, covering 306,000 tons of potatoes, or 26.5 per cent. of the estimated total crop of 1929, show that on 1st June the total quantity in the hands of these persons was
58,250 tons, or 19 per cent. of the quantity mentioned above. This proportion cannot, however, be safely applied throughout Scotland. Probably the proportional amount left in the hands of smaller growers is less. No returns have been received from merchants who are not growers.

Mr. MILLAR: Have any steps been taken to ascertain what use can be made of the surplus stocks still in the hands of the growers, and has the right hon. Gentleman considered that matter?

Mr. ADAMSON: Perhaps the hon. Member would put that question down.

Major COLVILLE: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can make a statement with regard to the proposed potato pool in Scotland, and if it is the intention of the Government to guarantee credit facilities in order to assist in the development of marketing arrangements?

Mr. ADAMSON: I understand that Scottish Potato Growers, Limited, have obtained signatures from about 1,300 potato growers to an agreement to market their potatoes through this agency for the three years, 1930–1932, inclusive. The area thus contracted for is about 17,000 acres. It has, however, been decided that the agreement shall not apply to the 1930 crop. The matter raised in tale second part of the question is receiving my consideration in connection with the report of the Committee on Agricultural Co-operation in Scotland. I hope to be in a position to make a further statement on the subject shortly.

Major COLVILLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the promoters of this marketing arrangement feel that they would have got much further if they had been promised some credit facilities?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered assisting in the erection of power alcohol distilleries to take the surplus stock of potatoes, as is done on the Continent?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. MANDER: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the reason for erecting specimen frames of the Em-
pire Marketing Board in overseas Empire countries; and whether this is to advertise British or other Empire produce abroad?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): A specimen of the Empire Marketing Board's poster frame has been erected in a few important cities in certain overseas Empire countries, with the object of giving a practical illustration to the people of the country concerned of the work that the Board are undertaking on behalf of Empire produce in the United Kingdom.

Mr. MANDER: Is it intended to extend the erection of these boards beyond the specimen stage?

Mr. THOMAS: I hope that the general principle on which the Empire Marketing Board is doing so much may be appreciated and recognised in the Dominions.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that consideration is given to this matter on the simple point whether it is desirable or not to try to redress the balance as between Empire and foreign produce?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly; that is a matter which will be taken into consideration.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if any of the 11 poster sets used by the Empire Marketing Board in advertising British goods have been displayed in the Dominions and Colonies; and, if so, in which?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether posters issued by the Empire Marketing Board dealing with the produce and manufactures of Great Britain are exhibited in the overseas Empire; and, if not, whether arrangements can be made for their exhibition with the object of drawing attention to the products of this country?

Mr. THOMAS: Specimen copies of all the posters issued by the Empire Marketing Board are sent regularly to His Majesty's Trade Commissioners in the Dominions, the West Indian and East Africa Colonies and Malaya, for such
display as local conditions permit. The object of sending out these specimens is to give a practical illustration to the people of the territories concerned of the work that the Board are undertaking on behalf of Empire produce in the United Kingdom. In regard to the second part of Question No. 18, the Board's activities are limited by the terms of the Empire Marketing Vote to furthering the sale of Empire products (including home agricultural products) in this country.

IMPORTED POTATOES.

Major CARVER: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the volume and value of foreign imported potatoes during the first six months of this year and the corresponding figures for last year?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The total imports of potatoes into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered as consigned from foreign countries during the five months ended 31st May, 1930, amounted to 1,115,000 cwts. of a declared value of £897,000, as compared with 980,000 cwts. valued at £904,000 during the corresponding period of 1929. I will send the hon. and gallant Member similar information for the full six months as soon as the particulars in respect of the month of June, 1930, are available.

Major CARVER: In view of the very large supply of potatoes, could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to prohibit the import of foreign potatoes?

Mr. GRAHAM: That raises the whole question of the prohibition of imported foodstuffs. I cannot deal with that in answer to a supplementary question.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any indication of the tonnage of last year's crop still remaining in the country?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot without notice.

IMPORTED OILS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of the mineral oils and oil products imported into and retained in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland during last year?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total declared value of petroleum, crude and refined, mineral jelly and paraffin wax imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the year 1929, less re-exports during that year, amounted to £41,895,000. The declared value of the domestic exports of these products from Great Britain and Northern Ireland during the same year amounted to £3,859,000, and my hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that practically the whole of these were probably derived from imported oils. The latter figure does not include oil-fuel shipped for use as bunkers, the value of which is not available.

PRISON MADE GOODS (AMERICAN BOOTS).

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether boots and shoes made by convict labour in Sing Sing Prison, America, are imported and sold in Great Britain?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have no information that boots and shoes, made as stated in the question, have been imported into the United Kingdom.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries whether there are such boots imported?

Mr. GRAHAM: Under the Foreign Prison Made Goods Act, 1897, there is power to deal with a matter of this kind if we get information, but in all these cases I have never been able to get precise information from anyone.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Surely the Labour party will not object to boots and shoes coming in.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever seen an American Consular invoice?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have received a goad many documents in my time, but the Rouse must understand that we require information to be tendered to the Customs or other authorities before we can act. That information I have never been able to get.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: If the right bon. Gentleman finds that there is any truth in the suggestion in this question, will he take steps to prohibit the importation of such articles?

Mr. GRAHAM: Of course, that is hypothetical. I must get the information, and, if the case falls within the Act, it is for the Government to decide whether steps should be taken.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that, whatever the right hon. Gentleman proposes, the Liberals will not let him do it?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is not a fact.

PATENT LAWS, ITALY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Italy undertook under The Hague Convention, which became operative on 1st June, 1928, to modify her own patent laws, in accordance with the regulations of the convention, but in fact has not yet done so; that under the convention of 1925, which became operative in 1928, exploitation was unnecessary and a system of compulsory licences was introduced but, as Italy has not modified her laws, the Italian courts still hold that patented articles must be absolutely manufactured within the country, and that the result of this is that British patentees who have been working under the terms of the convention now find their patents useless and their ideas exploited by others in Italy without redress; and whether he will take action to bring the matter at once to the notice of the Italian Government?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed at The Hague on 8th November, 1925, came into operation between Italy and this country on 1st June, 1928, and British subjects are accordingly entitled to claim the benefits of that Convention in Italy as from that date. I have just received particulars of a case in which it is alleged that a British firm has been refused such benefits and I am considering whether any action should be taken.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: When the right hon. Gentleman goes into the case that has been put before him, which is the case on which this question is based, will he take special note of the fact that it is not that they are not getting justice in Italy, because they are getting the justice that is laid down by the present Italian law, but the fact that Italy has not altered her laws in accordance with the
undertaking she gave at the time of the Convention, and that thereby British subjects and other foreigners lose all their rights?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have just received the case in detail, and I have given instructions for a, very full inquiry to be made. I will certainly bear in mind also the additional point which the hon. Member has put.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an opportunity of discussing the matter with him?

Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly.

ECONOMIC MISSIONS.

Mr. MANDER: 63.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is now able to say what further economic missions he proposes to send to different parts of the world?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Overseas Trade Development Council have been giving special consideration to the question of economic missions as a means of assisting the export trade of this country. Various proposals are being examined, and I hope it will be possible to make a definite announcement in the near future.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that the hon. Gentleman gave exactly the same reply about six months ago, is it not possible for him to say when a decision is likely to be reached?

Mr. GILLETT: The hon. Member has overlooked the fact that I have already announced that a mission is to be sent to the Far East. That announcement was made less than six months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL CONFERENCE (AGENDA).

Mr. COCKS: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will consider placing on the agenda for the Imperial Conference the question of import control boards and bulk purchasing?

Mr. THOMAS: As I stated in reply to a supplementary question addressed to me on 25th June by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the agenda for the Conference is a matter
for agreement between the Governments participating in it; but I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of including the subjects he mentions will not be overlooked.

Mr. ALBERY: 53.
asked the Postmaster-General if it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to raise the question of cheaper cable and postal communications within the Empire at the forthcoming Imperial Conference?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): The agenda for the Imperial Conference is still under consideration, and I regret that it is not at present possible to make any statement on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

EX-SERVICE MEN, IRISH FREE STATE.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many houses have been built in Kerry by the Soldiers and Sailors Land, Trust for ex-service men; how many more it is proposed to build; and what rents are being charged?

Mr. THOMAS: I am informed that 14 cottages were completed by the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust at Tralee, and occupied in February, 1928, and that the Trustees propose to build 16 other cottages. The rents of the existing cottages at Tralee are 10 at 5s. per week, and four at 6s. 6d. per week.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any representations have been made by societies or individuals in Southern Ireland protesting against the rents charged, and also against the number of cottages that are built?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not the foggiest notion about that, but I will have it looked into.

STATISTICS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 71.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been built during the 12 months ended 25th June, 1930, showing separately the number that have been built with State assistance and private enterprise, respectively; and what were the corresponding figures for the previous 12 months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): Figures for houses built without subsidy of a rateable value not exceeding £78 (or £105 in the Metropolitan

Year ended 31st March.
Private Enterprise without State Assistance.
Private Enterprise with State Assistance.
Local Authorities.
Total.


1929
…
…
…
…
64,740
49,069
55,723
169,532


1930
…
…
…
…
90,086
50,124
61,850
202,060

Sir K. WOOD: Have the Government now revised their views about private enterprise in housing?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Parliamentary Secretary now take back all the things that she said against private enterprise?

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS.

Mr. DAY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of applications that have been made to his Department for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date for the registration of films under the Cinematograph Films Act of 1927; ears he state the number of these films that have been classified for quota as long films; and the number that have been refused such classification?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: In the 12 months ended 30th June last there were registered 1,792 films, of which 108 were British long films. Three applications for the registration of British long films were refused, two of them because the films did not fall within the scope of the Act and one because it did not comply with the conditions under which a film may be deemed to be British.

Mr. DAY: In view of the small number of quota films, can the right hon. Gentleman say what measures are being taken so that exhibitors will not be forced to break the law?

Mr. GRAHAM: I can add nothing to recent replies. If my hon. Friend has in mind legislation, that I cannot promise. What I can promise is the continued interest of the Advisory Committee in everything connected with the industry.

Police District) are only available in respect of the six months periods eliding in March and September respectively. The figures for the 12 months ended in March are as follow:

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman promise that the Advisory Committee will look upon the commission of breaches with a beneficent eye so that prosecutions will not take place?

Mr. MANDER: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is proposed to hold any form of inquiry into the present position of the film industry in this country with a view to obtaining agreed recommendations?

Mr. GRAHAM: The answer is in the negative, for reasons which have now been fully explained to the hon. Member.

Mr. MANDER: Has the Advisory Committee recently considered the position?

Mr. GRAHAM: The Advisory Committee has considered innumerable problems connected with the industry. What my hon. Friend was requesting recently was an alteration of the quota, which would require legislation, and I cannot promise legislation.

Mr. MANDER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the opinion of the Advisory Committee on that point?

Mr. GRAHAM: Their opinion is taken on innumerable points. If my hon. Friend refers to the recent deputation, I am proposing to bring the matter to the notice of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman received many communications from independent exhibitors saying it is impossible to carry out their obligations?

Mr. GRAHAM: Many letters, no doubt, have been received, but I should require notice as to the precise character of any complaints.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do any-
thing to make it compulsory for Americans coming here to produce films through legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already mentioned that that will require legislation. There is no doubt that that raises the whole question of the quota and, if that is so, I am not in a position to promise legislation.

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Members on these benches would regard it as an agreed Bill?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is precisely the point. My information is to the contrary.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EMIGRATION.

Mr. ALBERY: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state how many unemployed men emigrated last year, and how many emigrated the previous year?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, GLASGOW.

Mr. STEPHEN: 62.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims to benefit

DISALLOWANCES on the ground "not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment" of claims to benefit made at Bridgeton and Parkhead Employment Exchanges.


Period.
Bridgeton.
Parkhead.


Men.
Women.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Total.


1929.








12th March—8th April
…
1
9
10
2
—
2


9th April—13th May
…
7
17
24
5
—
5


14th May—10th June
…
2
5
7
—
—
—


1930.








13th March—14th April
…
382
409
791
160
158
318


15th April—12th May
…
757
253
1,010
121
281
402


13th May—9th June
…
437
78
515
135
28
163


NOTES.—A. Statistics of the disallowance of claims to unemployment benefit are available only for monthly periods.


B. During the period 12th March to 10th June, 1929, there were on the registers an average of 2,685 persons at Bridgeton and 680 at Parkhead whose claims had been disallowed under transitional conditions as compared with 832 at Bridgeton and 461 at Parkhead in the period 13th March to 9th June, 1930.

COMMITTEE.

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in relation to the Advisory Committee on Unemployment, he will state the nature of the papers which are to be supplied to members of the
which have been refused to applicants registered at Bridgeton and Parkhead Employment Exchanges, Glasgow, respectively, for each week since the coming into operation of the new Act to the latest available date on the ground that applicants were not normally in insurable employment, and the corresponding figures for the previous year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether there has been an increase in the figures?

Mr. LAWSON: I have asked my hon. Friend to look at the figures for a certain date. As they are extremely complicated, I could not answer the question in, detail.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is that these figures have now become so complicated compared with what they used to be?

Following is the statement:

committee; whether civil servants will be requested to be in attendance at such meetings; and whether its proceedings will be secret?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, as the body to which he is presumably referring is a Committee of the Cabinet, I cannot undertake to give any information either as to its proceedings or procedure.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the Prime Minister confusing the Committee to which I am referring? I am referring to the Committee of which he and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) are joint members. That is the Committee about which I want information.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry; from the right hon. Member's question I did not draw that conclusion.

Sir K. WOOD: May I repeat the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: Please do.

SINGER'S SEWING MACHINE WORKS, GLASGOW.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 59.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that the Singer Sewing Machine Works at Clydebank are to be closed from 17th July until 4th August; and whether the workers laid off will receive unemployment benefit during the period the works are closed?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware that the dates of closing have been definitely fixed. The question of eligibility for benefit can only be decided by the statutory authorities before whom all the facts will be laid.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am telling the hon. Member that the date is definitely fixed. It is up in the works. There is no doubt about it. Why should he say that he does not know the date when I am telling him that it is definitely fixed? It was his duty to make inquiries, and give me an answer.

Mr. LAWSON: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for the information, but officially we know nothing about it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the importance of the matter and the wide-
spread concern in the West of Scotland regarding it, has the hon. Gentleman asked that a local inquiry should be made, and will he take steps to see that the authorities give a decision at an early date?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is a very serious matter. We have put down a definite question, and we are told that the Government have no definite information. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Kirkwood. Question No. 60.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 60.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that many piece-workers at Singer's Sewing Machine Works at Clydebank are deprived of receiving unemployment benefit by being compelled to remain in the factory for 30 hours per week in the hope of further work being provided, which on many occasions does not materialise; that many of these people are married men with families who are earning less money in such circumstances than they would receive in unemployment benefit if totally unemployed; and what steps she proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. LAWSON: I have asked for a report on this matter and will communicate with my hon. Friend when I receive it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I must appeal to the House. We did not hear that reply.

Mr. LAWSON: I said that I have asked for a report in this matter and that I will communicate with my hon. Friend when I have received it.

Mr. MAXTON: If the hon. Gentleman finds, as a result of his inquiry, that there is a direct evasion of the Unemployment Insurance Act will he take steps—

Mr. SPEAKER: That appears to be a hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANKRUPTCY LAWS (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. PURBRICK: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of cases during the year 1929 in which an offence or offences against the Bankruptcy Laws have been brought to the notice of the Board of
Trade; and in how many of such cases have prosecution proceedings been instituted?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During 1929, 148 cases in which there were offences against the Bankruptcy Laws were brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, and in all those cases, 39 in number, in which the necessary Order of the Court concerned in the bankruptcy was made, prosecutions were instituted.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Is not the Soviet Government of Russia the most fraudulent bankrupt?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RATION ALLOWANCES.

Mr. FREEMAN: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has now been able to reconsider the question of the recent reduction in ration allowances to non-commissioned officers and men on leave; and if he is unable to restore the original position, whether he can improve the present rates?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): Yes, Sir. I have gone very carefully into this question, but regret that it is not possible to make any change during the current financial year. I am, however, arranging that the matter shall be very fully considered in connection with next year's estimates.

CIVILIAN CLOTHES (ALLOWANCE).

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many suits of civilian clothes are supplied annually to soldiers on discharge or transfer to the Army Reserve; whether these clothes are supplied by the Army Clothing Department; if not, what is the source of supply; and what is the price paid by the War Office for each suit?

Mr. SHAW: Soldiers are not provided with plain clothes on discharge or transfer to the Army Reserve, but are granted a money allowance to assist them in the purchase of such clothes. They may, if they wish, purchase suits from Army stocks and the average number of suits so purchased during the last three years was 8,000 a year. These suits are made up under contract and are supplied by the Royal Army Clothing Department. It would be contrary to practice to fur-
nish the information asked for in regard to prices.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the material of which these suits are made is manufactured in this country?

Mr. SHAW: Not without notice of the question.

RECRUITING.

Sir A. KNOX: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of recruits obtained for the Regular Army and the Territorial Forces in the first six months of 1930; how the numbers compare with 1929; and to what cause he attributes the decline, if any?

Mr. SHAW: For the first five months of 1930, 11,949 recruits enlisted into the Regular Army and 15,647 into the Territorial Army. The comparable figures for 1929 were 12,753 and 14,770. Figures for June, 1930, are not yet available. As regards the last part of the question, I do not think it possible to attribute the fall in recruiting for the Regular Army to any single cause. I might add for the information of the hon. and gallant member that the number of applicants for the Regular Army served with notice papers during the first three months of 1930 and 1929 were 18,988 and 20,197 respectively and of these totals only 8,098 and 8,292 were accepted as recruits.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any steps to make up the deficiency in recruits, which is really serious, being only about 10 per cent.?

Mr. SHAW: Every kind of effort which has previously been made is being made to-day. I am fully aware of the gravity of the position. The figures which I have given of the numbers of people who offer their services to the Army and are turned down because of defective physique are raising the greatest anxiety not only in my mind but in the mind of everyone who has a love for his country.

Mr. THURTLE: Does not my right hon. Friend think that one of the contributory causes of the decline of recruiting is the fact that a more enlightened view of war is now spreading?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider countering the position by a personal recruiting campaign in the country?

MARRIED QUARTERS.

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether all soldiers on the married establishment in the London district are in occupation of quarters and, if not, how many such soldiers are there for whom quarters are not available?

Mr. SHAW: The number of married families of soldiers on the married quarters roll in the London district who are not provided with public quarters is approximately 260. But this number includes the families of soldiers serving in the War Office and at the Horse Guards, for whom accommodation would not in many cases normally be provided.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to provide the 400 families at Aldershot who are in quarters which are too small for them with fresh quarters?

Mr. SHAW: The general proportion of the different sized quarters built for married families was fixed as the result of a census taken some years ago, and I am having inquiry made to see whether any alteration in that proportion is desirable. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that this question has been a difficult one for years and that the problem is not capable of easy and quick solution.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the situation has been aggravated by bringing back the Army from the Rhine, and will he do all that he posibly can to expedite the clearing away of the slum conditions in the British Army?

Mr. SHAW: I believe that there has been little or no aggravation of the position through bringing back the Army from the Rhine. I have heard allegations that there are quarters which date back to the Crimea, and of the intervening period since then we have only been responsible for two years. I will do my best to see that we meet our responsibilities.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many married families of the British Forces there are in the Woolwich district which
are in quarters which are too small for them and for which larger quarters are not available?

Mr. SHAW: The number of families in married quarters in the Woolwich district to whom a larger quarter would be allotted were it available is 70.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the position with regard to this matter so serious in Woolwich that the right hon. Gentleman himself has taken action for ejectment in the Woolwich County Court on several occasions?

Mr. SHAW: The position is exactly what it was under the late Government.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he himself has taken several actions for ejectment quite recently in the county court there?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. SHAW: The right hon. Gentleman personally has taken no action whatever; his Department has.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not a fact that in all these proceedings the plaintiff on the summons appears as the Secretary of State for War, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to shelter himself behind his Department?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

FILMS (PRODUCTION AND ASSISTANCE).

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for War the fee at which the War Office were prepared to agree to the request of a British film company to lend a battalion or more of British soldiers as actors for the film "Tell England"; and whether this offer was accepted?

Mr. SHAW: It would be contrary to practice to give information as to contract prices. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. YOUNG: Will my right hon. Friend take care that soldiers do not undertake work which legitimately be longs to unemployed film actors?

Mr. SHAW: I thought that the complaint in this case was that the Army had demanded too much money; that the complaint was from the film com-
pany that they could not pay the money owing to the excessive demands of the Army for payment?

Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that British film producing companies receive preference?

Mr. SHAW: I did not know that we ever supplied soldiers for foreign films.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the last Government supplied soldiers for a foreign film?

SERVICE PENSIONS (COMMUTATION).

Major LEIGHTON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will inform the House of the number of service pensioners who have commuted a portion of their service pension during the past two years for the purpose of migration to British Dominions or Colonies, and the average age of such pensioners?

Mr. SHAW: During the two years ended 31st March, 1929, which is the latest period for which statistics are available, approximately 60 service pensioners commuted part of their pensions for the purpose of emigration to the Dominions or Colonies. No separate record is kept of the names or ages of these men, and these particulars could only be obtained after considerable research. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to supply the information asked for in the last part of the question.

SOLDIERS' PURCHASES (LEGAL CLAIMS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for War the reasons for the practice of declining to give the address of a soldier against whom there are legal claims in respect of goods bought from tradespeople and not paid for?

Mr. SHAW: The War Office have been advised that they are under no legal liability to furnish addresses in these cases, and it is understood that in refusing to communicate information of this kind to third parties for private purposes, the Department's long established practice is in consonance with that of such private institutions as banks.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

INSPECTORS, WALES.

Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many divisional inspectors of mines, senior, junior and sub-inspectors of mines and quarries, respectively, there are in Wales and Monmouthshire; and how many in each category have a knowledge of the Welsh language?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): In Wales and Monmouthshire there are employed three divisional inspectors, four senior inspectors, eight junior inspectors, 10 sub-inspectors of mines and quarries, and two horse inspectors, a total of 27, three of whom spend only part of their time in Wales. Of these 27 inspectors, 13 have a thorough knowledge and eight others some knowledge of the Welsh language.

OIL EXTRACTION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state what was the total quantity of mineral oil produced in the United Kingdom from coal, shale, etc., during last year?

Mr. SHINWELL: In the case of coal information is not available of the amount of mineral oil produced by various processes. As regards oil produced from shale it is estimated that, expressed in terms of crude oil and naphtha, the production from this source amounted in 1929 to rather more than 40,000,000 gallons.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is any other source of oil supply being tapped now? My hon. Friend will be aware that there was at one time in this country a little oil produced from the soil.

Mr. SHINWELL: As far as I know, there are no natural oil wells in the country which are being exploited.

WORKING HOURS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to state the nature of the decision reached at the International Labour Conference witn reference to international action regarding hours of work in mines?

Mr. SHINWELL: A Convention dealing with the hours of work in coal mines was drawn up in committee and secured a majority of votes in the full Conference, but narrowly failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority in the final vote. The Conference then decided by a large majority to place the question on the agenda for next year.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Member aware that the conferences which have been held up to the present time have been abortive; and may I ask whether it is intended to continue them?

Mr. SHINWELL: I take the opposite view. I think they have achieved a large measure of success.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Member say what practical results have been attained up to the present?

Mr. SHINWELL: I could, if there were time.

EXPORT TRADE (ITALY).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 48.
asked the Secretary for Mines what amount of the 1,000,000 tons of British coal to be shipped to Italy under agreement with the Italian Government has now been shipped from this country; and whether any quantity has been carried in British ships?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am advised that 502,500 tons of this coal have already been shipped, practically all in Italian vessels.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether it was not an understanding when this arrangement was made that a certain proportion of this coal should be shipped in British bottoms, and whether any representations have been made to the Italian Government to that effect?

Mr. SHINWELL: My information is to the opposite effect.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the agreement was to ship this coal in Italian bottoms?

Mr. SHINWELL: The question did not arise in a definite form. It was an arrangement for the supply of coal, principally from South Wales, to Italy.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: When this arrangement was made, was there a definite understanding that this coal should be shipped in Italian bottoms?

Mr. SHINWELL: That is not so.

BOYS (EMPLOYMENT UNDERGROUND).

Mr. COCKS: 49.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many boys, under the age of 16, are at present working underground in the coal mines?

Mr. SHINWELL: In December, 1929, the latest date for which definite information is available, the total number of boys under 16 years of age employed below ground at coal mines was 28,800.

Viscountess ASTOR: If the Bill raising the school age to 15 is passed, would not it take these boys out of the mines?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND TAX (REFUND CLAIM).

Sir KENYON VAUGHANMORGAN: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that refund of land tax, demanded in error for four successive years and paid by the taxpayers, Messrs. William Douglas and Sons, in respect of property in Putney, by inadvertence, has been refused by the Board of Inland Revenue; and what steps he proposes to take to meet this case?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I am making inquiry into this matter and will communicate shortly with the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKERS (RETIREMENT PENSIONS).

Mr. COCKS: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated annual cost of a permanent scheme to increase the old age pension at 65 to £1 for single persons and 30s. a week for married men conditional on retirement from work; and whether he can give an estimate as to the number of persons who might reasonably be expected to accept the conditions?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is estimated that the additional cost of such an extension of the present system of old age pensions might amount to £15
millions in the first year, assuming, as is evidently necessary, that at the outset all insured persons over 65 who were available for work, whether actually in employment or not, would be entitled to participate. The corresponding charge after 10 years would be about £25 millions and the increase would continue for a long period. The number of claimants at the outset is assumed, after a careful survey of the probabilities, to be about 450,000, of whom however by no means all would be persons actually in regular employment, while the number of vacancies that would result from the retirement of such persons would be likely to be even smaller.

Viscountess ASTOR: Did not the present Government, before the last election, promise to increase these pensions?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

RURAL TELEPHONE CALL OFFICES.

Mr. DAY: 50.
asked the Postmaster-General the number of telephone call-boxes that have been installed at rural railway stations and villages in England during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; whether the fees payable for them are under a special agreement; and will he give particulars?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The number of rural call offices provided in England and Wales during the year ended the 31st March last was 3,694, of which 357 were at railway stations. The ordinary call office fees are charged for calls made from them.

Mr. DAY: May I ask whether there are any automatic boxes from which people can pay for trunk calls?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: A certain number of them.

TELEGRAPH WIRES (STOKE NEWINGTON).

Mr. MESSER: 51.
asked the Postmaster-General why he refuses to sanction the laying of telegraph wires underground in the borough of Stoke Newington; and if he is aware that his decision will necessitate the erection of telegraph posts on footways in Springfield Road, Aden Grove, Shakespeare Road, Cowper Road, and Milton Road, Stoke Newington, and
that the erection of these posts will meet with the opposition of the Stoke Newington Borough Council?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Underground lines have been and are being laid in Stoke Newington wherever financial considerations warrant that course. A certain amount of overhead plant must, however, be erected where wholly underground construction would involve unremunerative capital expenditure; and it is for this reason that posts are being erected in the roads named, with the consent of the borough council.

MOTOR VEHICLES.

Mr. ALBERY: 52.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will state, of the 2,950 road transport vehicles in the Post Office fleet, how many are of British manufacture and, of the 600 added during the last year, how many are of British manufacture?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: As regards the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle) on the 24th of June. Of the vehicles purchased or ordered during the last 12 months 100 have been of 80 per cent. British manufacture and 512 wholly British manufacture.

Mr. DAY: Can the Postmaster-General say how many of the previous ones were ordered by the late Government?

TEMPORARY POSTMAN, LYNDHURST.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: 54.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Charles Stapleton, acting as temporary postman from 19th May to 28th June, 1930, for the Lyndhurst rural district of Mansfield, found that, owing to the heavy loads and the distance to be covered, it could not be done within the time allowed, and consequently, although paid at the usual rate per hour for temporary postmen, was not paid for the time he actually worked; and if he will have the time allowance for this delivery adjusted and this man paid for the actual time worked?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am having inquiry made and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

NEED PENSIONS.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 55.
asked the Minister of Pensions what is the nature of the inquiry made into the means of persons who have a need pension; at what intervals is such investigation made; when a reduction is proposed how long notice is given; and if any chance is given to the person in receipt of such a pension to appear before any committee before such a reduction operates, or if any kind of hearing takes place?

Mr. PARKINSON (Lord of the Treasury): In the absence of my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Pensions, I have been asked to reply.
I am informed that inquiries, which take the form both of correspondence and investigation by a local officer of the Ministry, are usually instituted, not at regular intervals, but only as and when some material change in the financial circumstances of the case is indicated (whether on the application of the pensioner or otherwise) which makes reconsideration of the pension necessary with a view either to its increase or decrease. Where any prospective change of the pensioner's circumstances is involved, as long notice as possible is given to ensure that that change will have taken place before the reduction becomes operative. Changes in the rate of pension are made only on the basis of accomplished facts or of ascertained expectations, but any pensioner who considers that the facts have been misinterpreted has the usual right of making a complaint to the War Pensions Committee.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Cannot these people have the same right as anybody else; that is to say, that before a reduction takes place their case shall be heard by some committee? These are the only persons who are not given an opportunity of stating their case before a reduction takes place.

Mr. PARKINSON: I cannot answer the question, but I will convey the remarks of the hon. Member to the Minister of Pensions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And will the hon. Gentleman also ask the Minister of Pensions to introduce a little human touch into this matter?

SEVEN YEARS LIMIT.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 58.
asked the Minister of Pensions the total number of claims made to his Department for review of pensions claims under the new procedure which are outside the seven years limit; and the total number which have either a new pension or an improvement on their present pension?

Mr. PARKINSON: Some 14,500 fresh applications have been received in the past seven and a-half months, of which over 4,000 are still under consideration and investigation. 541 applications have been recognised either by way of treatment or pecuniary compensation.

Major TRYON: May I ask whether a promise to abolish the seven years' limit will continue to form part of the programme of the Labour party?

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).

Sir K. WOOD: 57.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can make any statement concerning the present position in the wool textile dispute?

Mr. LAWSON: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him on this subject on 24th June, to which I have nothing to add.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the hon. Member say Whether all these workpeople have gone back?

Mr. LAWSON: No, a certain section have not yet gone back.

Mr. BROOKE: Can the hon. Member say whether the Minister of Labour has been recently considering the appointment of a sub-committee to inquire into the conditions of the industry, and whether they are now in a position to make a report?

Mr. LAWSON: I should like the hon. Member to put that question down on the Paper.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Was there not a committee presided over by Lord Macmillan which presented a very valuable report?

WORKING HOURS (REGULATION).

Sir K. WOOD: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the subject of the position of salaried employés, and the convention for the regulation of their hours, has recently received her consideration in connection with the Washington Convention; whether she has received any representations from any trade organisations in connection therewith; whether the matter has been the subject of discussion at the recent International Labour Conference at Geneva; and whether any conclusions were reached at such conference?

Mr. LAWSON: The International Labour Conference on 28th June last adopted a draft convention concerning the regulation of hours of work in commerce and offices. Before the conference met my right hon. Friend received various representations from organisations interested in the subject.

AIR SERVICES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he will state what subsidy he would be prepared to offer to Imperial Airways, Limited, for operating an air-mail service between the North-east coast of England and the Continent?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): It would be for Imperial Airways to lay before the Air Ministry detailed proposals for such an air service and to state what additional subsidy, if any, they would require for its operation. Pending the receipt and careful examination of such proposals my Noble Friend is not in a position to state what, if any, subsidy would be given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does my hon. Friend anticipate receiving a proposal from Imperial Airways?

Mr. MONTAGUE: I do not know that I anticipate it, but questions of this kind are always under consideration.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, unless it is received, the whole scheme is held up, and only Imperial Airways, according to his policy, can do anything?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a first-class station at Cramlington, and will he not consult his advisers as to whether the answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is not that such stations should be encouraged in every way possible?

Mr. MONTAGUE: The whole matter is covered by an agreement of April, 1929, and we cannot go beyond that.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYES.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 68.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the unnecessary discrepancy between the total number of men employed in His Majesty's dockyards and the few who have security of establishment, he can see his way to allow a much greater proportion to be established as a matter of course after a period of probation?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. Hall): The question of modifying the present basis of filling establishment vacancies is under consideration, but I cannot agree that the 10,758 established men can be described as a few.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When can an announcement be made about this matter?

Mr. HALL: At an early date, I hope.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the promises given by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) to his constituents?

Later—

Viscountess ASTOR: May I correct a mistake which I made just now? I referred to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) when I meant to say the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Moses).

PUBLIC HEALTH.

BREAD.

Major CARVER: 69.
asked the Minister of Health whether any regulations affecting the type of bread which can be sold to the public for consumption are prescribed by the Governments of France, Italy and any other European countries?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend has obtained some information with regard to regulations bearing on this matter in France, Italy and Holland, a copy of which he is sending to the hon. and gallant Member. My right hon. Friend is making further inquiries upon the subject.

Mr. EVERARD: Is it not a fact that in those countries they lay down a rule that a certain percentage of flour obtained from their own wheat should be used? Why not in this country?

CALMETTE PROPHYLACTIC TREATMENT.

Mr. FREEMAN: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to state the result of the inquiries of the representatives of the Medical Research Council into the death of 20 infants in Lübeck, Germany, following the Calmette prophylactic treatment?

Miss LAWRENCE: No, Sir; but my right hon. Friend understands that a report to the Medical Research Council on the subject of these inquiries is in preparation.

POOR LAW RELIEF (WEST HAM).

Mr. SORENSEN: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will supply comparative tables of out-relief paid by the present Essex County Council Public Assistance Committee and the late West Ham Board of Guardians?

Miss LAWRENCE: My right hon. Friend is not sure what figures my hon. Friend desires to have, but the figures that are available for the county of Essex as a whole are not of course comparable with figures for the former West Ham Union.

Mr. McSHANE: Is it not possible for the Minister to give the relative scales of relief that have been paid or are being paid at the moment?

Miss LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member will put down a slightly clearer question, I will try to provide an answer.

ASYLUM OFFICERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. SORENSEN: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider amending the Asylum Officers' Superannuation
Act to allow nurses to receive superannuation after 25 instead of 33 years' service?

Miss LAWRENCE: The Act mentioned already entitles a nurse to a pension after 20 years' service if she has attained the age of 50 years. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the reply recently given to a question, as to the prospects of legislation on this subject.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a police officer who serves 25 years is entitled to a pension although his labour is far less arduous than that undertaken by male nurses?

ZAMBESI BRIDGE.

Mr. LAMBERT: 74.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies how the estimate of £3,000,000 for the Zambesi bridge has been arrived at; what are the main items of expenditure; what is the estimated revenue to be derived; and when the bridge will be constructed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I would refer the right hon. Member to the Stationery Office publication Colonial No. 27 and to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Southwark on the second of this month. Construction work on the approaches has been begun.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me on whose authority this estimate of £3,000,000 has been arrived at? Is it contained in the publication to which he has referred?

Dr. SHIELS: Full particulars are to be obtained in that publication. As a matter of fact, this subject has been very carefully investigated, first by the East Africa Loan Committee, and, secondly, by the Colonial Development Fund Advisory Committee, and all the estimates have been most carefully thought out.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the hon. Gentleman say what firm of engineers is responsible for this estimate?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, I cannot say.

Captain CAZALET: How much of this 13,000,000 will be spent in this country?

Dr. SHIELS: I think I have already given the figures. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman looks into the matter, I think he will find that they have been given.

Mr. LAMBERT: 75.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that the Nyasaland Government has undertaken the responsibility of financing £2,500,000 for the Zambesi bridge, he will say what was the estimated expenditure and revenue of Nyasaland for the latest available year?

Dr. SHIELS: For 1930 the revenue and expenditure apart from loans are estimated at £409,614 and £430,657 respectively.

Mr. LAMBERT: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed to issue the guaranteed loan of £3,000,000 for the Zambesi bridge; and whether he will withhold a guarantee an behalf of the Treasury until Parliament has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on this project?

Dr. SHIELS: I cannot at present give a date for the issue of the loan. Under the authority given by the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, the Treasury have already undertaken to guarantee the loan for the bridge and the connected schemes, thus enabling agreements to be concluded with the companies concerned and the work of construction on the approaches to be begun.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I have an answer to the last part of my question, as to whether the House will be consulted before this loan is issued?

Dr. SHIELS: If I may say so with respect, the right hon. Gentleman is very late in his attention to this matter. It has been before the House on several occasions, and the figures have been fully gone into more than once.

PALESTINE (IMMIGRATION).

Mr. SORENSEN: 76.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the present restriction on immigration to Palestine is to be removed?

Dr. SHIELS: As I explained on the 21st of May, this restriction was considered de-
sirable pending the receipt of Sir John Hope Simpson's report. I cannot name a date for its removal.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread indignation which is felt by the Jewish community in this country?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir, I am fully aware of all the circumstances of the case.

Mr. SORENSEN: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any hope of immediate amending legislation?

Dr. SHIELS: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have said.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (FLOWERS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 78.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is yet in a position to announce whether he is able to make any arrangements for a suitable supply of flowers in some of the rooms of the House of Commons?

Mr. PARKINSON: My right hon. Friend has considered the matter, but regrets that he does not see his way to incur the expenditure involved.

Mr. FREEMAN: Are we to assume from that reply that the Members of this House are less appreciative of the value of flowers than people in other meeting places?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I desire, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make upon the business of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Committee stage of the Finance Bill will be taken as the first Order to-morrow, Wednesday, 9th July. We hope to complete the Committee stage at about 7.30 o'clock or, at any rate, sufficiently early to admit of the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill being completed without asking the House to sit late. I hope that this arrangement may commend itself to all quarters of the House.
May I, at the same time, announce the business for Friday. On Friday, 11th
July, the business will be the Public Works Facilities Bill, Second Reading, and, if time permits, progress will be made with the following Bills which are purely formal. Public Works Loans Bill; Isle of Man (Customs) (No. 2) Bill, and Sea Fisheries Regulation (Expenses) Bill.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the British North America Bill [Lords] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FANS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: On a point of Order. May I ask you Sir, to cast your eyes to the right and you will see there a lady waving a fan. May I ask you whether, since the male Members of this House are deprived of the privilege of using their swords or wearing them in the House, a lady Member is entitled to wave and to use a fan?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member wants. There is all the difference in the world between a sword and a fan. One is an offensive weapon and the other is not.

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.

Order [7th March] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Rochdale Corporation (No. 2) Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

Poor Prisoners' Defence Bill,

Illegitimate Children (Scotland) Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (No. 2) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duty of local authority to have regard to amenities of locality, etc.)

A local authority in preparing any proposals for the provision of houses or in taking any action under this or the principal Act shall have regard to the natural amenities of the locality and the desirability of preserving existing works of architectural, historic, or artistic interest, and shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf as may be given to them by the Minister.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
This Clause is designed to meet, as far as possible, a point which was raised during the Committee stage by two hon. Members opposite with regard to the preservation of buildings of historic or architectural importance. As I explained then, it is the desire of the Government to avoid placing unduly centralised responsibility in the department and the Clause has been framed with a view to bringing in the central department only in cases which are brought to the notice of the Minister by persons interested in the preservation of these buildings. The Amendment as originally proposed, would have given rise, I fear, to a good deal of litigation and to a good deal of centralised administration. The Clause as I present it now, means that local authorities will be free to act as they think best, but that people who are interested in the preservation of these buildings will be able to take action by asking the Minister, to make such regulations as will meet the case. The effect of the Clause is really to widen the original provision, and the provision which it was sought to make during the Committee stage. I pointed out then that the Amendments as drafted referred really to Part III of the Bill. The proposed new Clause, as drafted, will refer to Parts I and II of the Bill, under which parts this problem is more
likely to arise than under Part III. I hope that the House will accept the proposed new Clause as a contribution to what hon. Members opposite have in mind.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: The House will agree that the proposed new Clause is a considerable advance. One of my hon. Friends raised the question in Committee, because there have been a number of cases in recent months where a good deal of public anxiety has been caused in relation to certain houses of historic interest. What we desire to secure—whether it is secured by this Clause is doubtful, but perhaps this is the biggest advance which it is possible to make under the provisions of this Bill—is that there shall be some measure of protection against the inaction of a particular local authority, and some means by which, apart altogether from the decision of the authority itself, a particular historic house can be preserved. The right hon. Gentleman says in this proposed new Clause that the local authorities, in preparing proposals, shall have regard to matters of this kind. I take it that that implies that when they formulate any scheme to the Minister of Health he will see that notice is given to him of any existing works of architectural, historic or artistic interest that may be involved in the particular scheme in question. I take it that in the event of notice of that matter being given to him, and, he being of the opinion that efforts should be made to preserve such works, the new Clause will give him power to prevent any interference. If that is so, it is the most that we can expect, and I am sure that the House will be obliged to the hon. Gentleman who raised this matter in Committee, for it is a step forward in the direction which we all desire.

Mr. HARRIS: I am anxious to preserve buildings of historic interest. It is important that buildings of antiquity should not be destroyed, but I am nervous about the wording of this proposed Clause. I have had considerable experience in endeavouring to get estates far housing purposes, and whenever suitable land is discovered, 101 reasons are found why it should not be bought; either because the amenities of the district will be injured, or because a house on the estate is of
historic and artistic value. If we are to give the Minister this big power, he should make it clear that he will use it only in very exceptional circumstances. The other day a suitable estate was found in Battersea. Nowhere is overcrowding worse. Exactly what was expected happened—dozens of people who were all in favour of housing, and admitted the necessity of housing, said that this particular estate had historic interest and a building that ought to be preserved. The consequence was that there has been delay.
I remember when Roehampton was bought. The opposition was marshalled on artistic and aesthetic grounds; the estate had a noble mansion, and it was drought to be a wrong thing to desecrate it by ugly working-class houses. In those days, there was a militant feeling in regard to housing, and the opposition was swept away. Some of that enthusiasm in recent years has passed away. If the Minister is vested with these powers, he ought to make it clear that it will be on only very exceptional grounds that he will veto a housing proposal, and that he will not allow these very good purposes to be used to hinder the purchase of estates which are required for housing, anti the clearing of slums, just because they happen to contain one or two historic buildings. In Edinburgh a most historic street covers one of the worst slums in the world, and there are other streets in other towns of the same character. I have seen many difficulties against progress in housing and it is unfortunate that the first proposed Clause on the Report stage should seem to suggest a way out of doing necessary work on housing.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) objects to the whole of the Clause, or only to the small point made by the Minister. In any case, I cannot think that he is very happy in the illustration of Battersea which he has given. There has been an important scheme at Battersea, and I believe that one house was found to be of archæological interest, but the scheme has not been held up because of that. As a matter of fact, it has been held that the particular house is not such as need hold up the scheme, and the scheme is going on. If the proposed new Clause is carried out in the manner sug-
gested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), it will meet the situation. It is not all that we should have liked, for we should have preferred that the local authorities should be required to go to the Minister to get his consent, but the proposed new Clause is not very far from that, and we accept the Minister's form of words.

4.0 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I should like to ask the Minister one question: When a matter like this is referred to him, I presume he will consult the First Commissioner of Works and will ascertain the opinion of artistic authorities before he gives directions in these matters?

Sir TUDOR WALTERS: I wish to congratulate the Minister upon this Clause. With all my enthusiasm for housing, I do not want this particular period of English history to stamp itself and its building record with some of the ugliest productions in the history of the country. There is grave danger, in providing housing, of destroying ancient monuments and houses of historical interest which it would be quite easy to preserve; and there is also a danger of selecting for housing, sites which ought not to be built upon but which ought to be preserved as open spaces, when there are alternative sites equally suitable, even though they would possibly be a little more troublesome to procure. I do not think it is at all likely that the Minister of Health will abuse this power. Do not let us combine vandalism with our enthusiasm for housing; let us consider artistic taste and have regard to amenities, as well as the need for building houses for the working-classes. I think this is an important Clause, and I congratulate the Minister on proposing it.

Mr. HURD: May I ask the Minister whether he can give us any indication of what kind of direction he has in mind as being a direction he mght give in dealing with this matter? Furthermore, will he tell us whether, in drawing up his directions and in getting them carried out, he is likely to make use of the new advisory panels which are being established in various parts of the country, with the voluntary aid of some of the leaders of culture in the various areas, who has full local knowledge of the
character of the district and would be well able to advise him? I am wondering also whether the Minister can tell us whether he has anything in mind as to the nature of the proceedings which he will take?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case what kind of directions will be given. It may be that the direction will be that a particular site shall not be used for housing purposes. With regard to the question as to the central authority consulting with the First Commissioner of Works, where that course will be of assistance it will no doubt Le taken, in an appropriate case.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: I was very delighted to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) who explained to the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) how foolish it is to object to a reasonable Clause like this brought in by the Government; but with the best possible intention of protecting our ancient buildings, the English of this Clause does seem to me rather odd. I am not an expert in English, but it seems extraordinarily clumsy. The last two lines of the Clause provide that the local authority
shall comply with such directions, if any, in that behalf, as may be given to them by the Minister.
I do not think that in my experience I have ever met such an expression before as "comply with such directions in that behalf." Surely we can find more suitable and better English to express what is meant, and I do hope that the Minister will have that expression put right in another place. I really do not see that the phrase "in that behalf" is necessary at all. Why not leave out those words, and let the Clause read "and shall comply with such directions, if any, as may be given to them by the Minister"? The Minister is not likely to give instructions unconnected with "that behalf," if that is what those words mean. I do think this wording is extraordinarily clumsy, and I hope the Minister will reconsider it and possibly have it put right in another place.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Recovery of possession of houses and buildings for purposes of Housing Acts.)

(1) Section one hundred and twenty-eight of the principal Act (which excludes in certain cases the application of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920) is hereby repealed and in sub-stitution therefor the following provisions of this sub-section shall have effect, that is to say:
Nothing in the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925, shall be deemed to affect the provisions of this Act relating to the obtaining possession of a house with respect to which a clearance order or demolition order has been made, or to prevent possession being obtained of any house possession of which is required for the purpose of enabling a local authority to exorcise their powers under ally enactment relating to the housing of the working classes, or for the purpose of securing compliance with any by-laws made for the prevention of overcrowding.

(2) Where a local authority, for the purpose of exercising their powers under any enactment relating to the housing of the working-classes, require possession of any building or any part of a building of which they are the owners, then, whatever may be the value or rent of the building or part of a building, they may obtain possession thereof under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, as in the cases therein provided for, at any time after the tenancy of the occupier has expired or has been determined.—[Miss Lawrence.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
A considerable part of this Clause, that is to say the part down to the word "or" in line 11, is pure redrafting. It will be remembered that in Committee we amended Section 128 of the principal Act. This new Clause repeals that Section of the principal Act and substitutes another Clause for it, and the substituted Clause down to the word "or" is pure redrafting. Then we come to a new proposal:
or for the purpose of securing compliance with any by-laws made for the prevention of overcrowding.
This is a new case and gives power to a local authority to acquire possession of a house for the purpase of securing compliance with by-laws which the local authority may make. The clearance in such a case has become part of the purposes of the Housing Act, and as such
would logically fall within the provisions of this Clause, and we therefore propose formally to extend Section 128 to cover those cases, cases which will perhaps not be of very great frequency, but which may conceivably occur.
Sub-section (2) is a new provision. By Clause 38 of the Bill there is procedure provided for securing the possession of buildings which are the subject of a clearance order or demolition order. Local authorities have made the point that the provisions of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, provide a simpler procedure than going before the magistrate. It is a very good Act. Its only drawback is that it was passed in 1838, and therefore fixed a limit of rent, namely £20, which would be quite inapplicable at the present time. Subsection (2) of this new Clause allows summary procedure to obtain possession of houses with regard to which clearance or demolition orders have become operative to be taken in all cases by local authorities under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, irrespective of the amount of rent. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) in Committee moved an Amendment; which was substantially to the same effect. We could not accept it then, because the wording was perhaps not quite consonant with other parts of the Bill, but I think that it substance his point is met by this Clause.

Sir K. WOOD: The first observation which I should like to make about this Clause is that it seeks in the last part of the first Sub-section to deal with and amend the provisions of the Rent and Mortgage Interest. (Restrictions) Act s, 1920 to 1925, and it is very unsatisfactory to endeavour to deal with the Rent Restrictions Acts in a piecemeal fashion like this. The Government have been urged from time to time to deal with the Rent Restrictions Acts, and they have procrastinated and delayed and done nothing, as usual; but. I do think that it is unfortunate that we should take one little tiny bit of this Act and say: "This is consequential on what has been done previously, and we will just deal with this little bit, because it is on all fours with what was previously done." I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree with me when I say that that is not a satisfactory way of dealing with an Act which certainly calls for revision,
not only in favour of the landlord, but in many respects in favour of the tenant as well. It is very unsatisfactory that it should be dealt with in this way.
As regards Sub-section (2), the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) will probably think that his point has been met somewhat by this new Clause. So far as I am concerned, it seems to me that this may be of value. The provisions of the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, have, so far as I know, worked satisfactorily except from the point of view of amount, and it may be of value to adopt the suggestion which has been made; but I do think that we should raise a protest both with regard to the manner of dealing with the Rent Restrictions Acts and with regard to the failure of the Government to deal with one of the most urgent matters of the day.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of county court to determine lease where premises demolished.)

(1) Where any premises in respect of which a clearance order or a demolition order made under this Act has become operative form the subject matter of a lease, either the lessor or the lessee may apply to the county court within the jurisdiction of which the premises are situate for an order determining the lease.

(2) Upon any such application as aforesaid the county court judge, after giving to any sub-lessee an opportunity of being heard, may, if he thinks fit, order that the lease shall be determined, either unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions (including conditions with respect to the payment of money by any party to the proceedings to any other party thereto by way of compensation or damages or otherwise) as he may think it just a[...]equitable to impose, regard being had to the respective rights, obligations, and liabilities of the parties under the lease and all the other circumstances of the case.

(3) Rules with respect to the practice and procedure under this section shall be made by the authority having power to make rules of practice under the County Courts Acts, 1888 to 1924.

(4) In this section the expression "lease" includes an under-lease and any tenancy or agreement for a lease, under-lease, or tenancy, and the expression is "lessor," "lessee," and "sub-lessee" shall be construed accordingly.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has been introduced with a desire to meet a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) on the Committee stage of the Bill. It deals with the case where a demolition order is made affecting a building of which there is a lease and where it may happen that the lessee of the building, whose lease has perhaps only three or four years to run, may wish to develop the site, but, in view of the shortness of the remaining period of his lease, finds himself unable to do so. On the other hand, the freeholder may desire to develop the site, but is prevented by the fact that the lease still has a short term of years to run. The object of the Clause is to empower either party to apply to the county court and get from the county court judge a determination of the lease on terms which appear to be fair. That will enable the county court judge to say what terms are fair having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the extent to which the freeholder or the lessor, as the case may be, was responsible for the failure to keep the house in proper repair and so on. The original Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Grimsby left the matter to be determined by the demolition order itself, but I think it is quite clear that that must be decided by an independent authority. The county court judge is the authority designated for other purposes, and it seems to me that he would be the most desirable authority to deal with this particular case. I hope that the new Clause will meet the desire expressed by the hon. Member for Grimsby.

Sir K. WOOD: I want to make only one observation. No doubt this new Clause may meet the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) had in mind, but I think that someone ought to say a word on behalf of county court judges. The unfortunate county court judge in this case will apparently have before him parties some of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health says, may be in possession of a lease with three or four years to run and according to this Clause the county court judge has to determine what are just and equitable
terms to impose "regard being had to the respective rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties under the lease." When he gets that before him, I am sure the county court judge will say, "Thank you very much, House of Commons." If one looks at these words and really knows what they mean one sees that they say, "Very well, take these very difficult questions to the badly paid and hard-worked county court judge and let him make the best he can of it and come to a fair and reasonable decision." Perhaps if we put it in those blunt words, we should not be complying with the Rules of this House, but we certainly should be putting in popular language another of the difficult and onerous tasks which we are throwing upon the county court judges of the country.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: It has been said that it is bad form to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I want to say just a word or two on this new Clause which the Minister has proposed, and that I am very pleased to knew that he has changed his mind since the Committee stage; because he told me upon that occasion that it would be impossible to deal with such a complicated question as leaseholds in a Housing Bill. This proves one thing: that the time which we spent in Committee upstairs was not by any means wasted. It has been suggested in this House in a previous debate that we were wasting a lot of time in Committee upstairs. I denied it at the time, and I think here we have absolute proof that that has not been so. When I moved my Amendment, I did it on behalf of leasehold property owners in my own constituency, where the hulk of the property is built on leasehold land. Much of the property which would be likely to come under a Clearance Order is also built upon such land. I wanted something to be done for those people, and put forward my suggestion, but I agree that in this new Clause the Minister has produced a better arrangement than even I suggested, and that is a great admission from a Member for Grimsby. At any rate, I am satisfied, in spite of the fact that it may mean putting increased work on our County Court Judges. I think that is the best way of meeting the difficulty, because in most cases the County Court Judges have local knowledge, and they will also have the benefit of the local knowledge of the solicitors who will
appear before them. Further, there will be a saving of expense to the people concerned in that they will be able to get the case heard in their own district. The Minister has tried to meet my point, and I say again that I am delighted to know that even a Minister of Health has gained some little knowledge of housing as a result of our proceedings in Committee.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Dimension of houses.)

The dimension of houses built for re-housing purposes under this Act shall not be less than the minimum requirements laid down by section two of the Housing, &c., Act, 1923.—[Mr. Jowett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. JOWETT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
So far as I can gather, there is nothing in this Bill requiring a minimum size for the houses to be built under it. That is a most unfortunate omission in a Bill of this kind, which bases the State subsidy on the number of persons to be accommodated and not on the house itself. It is an inducement to local authorities to economise on the size of the houses they put up. The Clause I am proposing seeks to put into operation the same provision as is contained in the Act of 1923. Under that Measure a self-contained house of two storeys must not have a superficial area of less than 620 superficial feet, and a self-contained tenement must not have less than 550 superficial feet. As far as I can estimate, a single-storey house with 620 superficial feet would allow of there being only three rooms of 14 feet square, with the necessary pantry and accommodation for other purposes. If an extra bedroom has to be included, as will necessarily be the case with a family of five, there must be a skimping of the size of the rooms beyond what is desirable or sanitary. That will be still more the case with tenement dwellings.
I dare say the Minister will reply that this can be done by regulations; that the Ministry will have to sanction any scheme, and that one consideration to be taken into account will be that the accommodation is reasonable and fair. I have a very lively recollection of stirring debates, in which the late Mr. Wheatley
took a prominent part, when he fought very hard for a statutory requirement on this particular point. It was a very stiff struggle before he could get these requirements put into the 1923 Act. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will always insist that the space shall be sufficient, but we do not know who may be his successor, and I think conditions ought to be inserted in the Bill. If the Clause be included as it exists in the 1923 Act it will not allow of a sub-division for a single person or for couples or for aged people living together. If that be the only objection, my right hon. Friend can easily substitute some scale based on a superficial area requirement per room. That would meet the case. I hope he will respond to this appeal and see that the Bill is not passed without a stipulation such as I have described.

KINLEY: I beg to second the Motion.
I would appeal to the Minister to look at this matter not merely according to the standards of to-day, but to remember that the machinery now being created is long-dated machinery which will operate over a period of 40 years. He should think of the air space requirements throughout the whole of the next 40 years. He will, I am sure admit, as all must admit who have been in many of the houses now being built, that the air space often falls short of what is desirable. Once the evil has been done it cannot easily be undone. However desirable increased air space may be, there is no machinery in existence which will enable local authorities to provide the improvement which many of them agree to be necessary. Now that we are making a beginning in dealing with the worst class of property in existence we should realise that it is not desirable to set up a low standard, and should go in for a much higher one than has existed hitherto. The Department must have impressed upon the Minister the absolute necessity above all other things—even above the need of adequate food—of adequate air space for the people who will inhabit these houses. We are dealing now with people who do not get adequate air space to keep themselves physically fit outside the confines of their homes, we are dealing with people who by their very economic circumstances are fixed and tied, spending the greater part
of their lives inside these homes, and it is absolutely necessary to guarantee to them adequate air space.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think all Members of the House will be in sympathy with the general desire of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jowett), but most of what he said had reference rather to the dimensions of individual rooms than to the size of the house. There might be a minimum standard of superficial area for the house and yet lack of air space per room if there were too many rooms in the house. We have to distinguish two sets of cases. In the Acts of 1923 and 1924 we were concerned only with a general housing shortage, and had to have regard to the circumstances of normal families requiring two or three bedrooms; and it was with that in mind that the minimum and maximum requirements were laid down under those Acts. Neither the 1923 nor the 1924 Acts really permitted of provision being made for exceptionally large families, because they both dealt with normal families. In our re-housing schemes there never has been any such requirement. The general theory has been that in such cases we must have regard to the particular circumstances, and always the houses to be constructed have had to be of a type and size approved by the Minister.
In dealing with the problem of the slums we need to get rid of both minimum and maximum requirements. We need to be in a position to build much larger houses where there are very large families, and we ought not to require a minimum which is a family minimum where the people who are to occupy the house do not constitute what we should call a normal family. It must be remembered that, in the case of very poor people, every additional room in a house which is not required means an unnecessary addition to their rent. When no additional bedrooms for children are required we make provision for smaller houses which will mean lower rents, more conveniences and less household work. On the one hand we must have regard to small families, to childless people, and to two women living together; and on the other hand to the requirements of very large families. To impose either minimum or maximum conditions would inter-
fere with the discretion of a local authority to provide the right kind of accommodation for the people for whom the new houses are designed.

Mr. JOWETT: Why not specify so much space per room?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Local authorities already have their by-laws dealing with that point, and it would be descending to very considerable detail to specify in an Act of Parliament the space per room, because that should depend upon the use to which the room is to be put and the number of persons who will occupy it.

Sir K. WOOD: We have had an interesting, illuminating and entertaining speech from the right hon. Gentleman. Socialism is at last pleading for smaller houses. I remember the days, before the right hon. Gentleman had the experience and knowledge that he has to-day, when he sat on this side of the House and made the Chamber ring with his denunciation of expressions of opinion such as he has so boldly enunciated this afternoon. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) or myself said a word about the necessity of building decent small houses for small families, we were denounced as cruel, heartless, murderous, immoral. [Interruption.] What I say is true. I believe it was the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who used to spread himself on this question. We were told that we were building rabbit hutches, and that we were not looking after the needs of the people. To-day, we have had a decent, sensible commonsense statement upon the position by the right hon. Gentleman, and we welcome it. Whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jowett) can be so complacent as I am about the matter, I do not know. He has a right to be resentful. What he said in his speech this afternoon the Labour party has been asking for the last 50 years. No one can blame him. He has stuck to his principles in all that he has said on public platforms and at the street corners, and the Minister of Health will certainly have to go to various parts of the country and, I hope, retract publicly all that he has said on this matter.
I desire to thank the right hon. Gentleman who moved this now Clause. He has had considerable experience in connec-
tion with housing affairs. I remember the experience that he had when he was First Commissioner of Works, and had to administer the housing estate in my Division. I want to thank him also because in endeavouring to obtain minimum requirements for housing, which the Seconder said should last for all time in this country, he has fixed upon the Housing Act of 1923. What a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston! I wish he was here this afternoon. In seeking for minimum requirements for housing hon. Members opposite have fixed upon the Conservative Government's Act of 1923. They have abandoned all other Acts and have fixed upon the Act of my right hon. Friend I should think the Liberal party are green with envy at the position in which the Conservative party finds itself this afternoon. If you want a fine standard for housing accommodation in this country, look to the Act of 1923, the Conservative party Act! I thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of my party for the unexpected tribute which he has offered to us this afternoon.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The House will welcome the right hon. Gentleman in his new role as leader of the Independent Labour party. I think we shall have to change the initials of the I.L.P. I understood that the initials meant, "I like plenty," but they will not be able to make that their motto after the speech of the Minister of Health. Whether he was bound to turn down the new Clause or not is another matter, but I am sure that housing reformers throughout the country will read with dismay the defence he made for turning down the Clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) may be complacent about it, but he knows well enough that there are plenty of housing reformers outside the Labour party, people connected with his own party, who have fought to bring home to the conscience of the country the fact that the housing problem is concerned with the relation of four words one to the other—person, room, family, dwelling, and that the highest standard should be reckoned as every family a dwelling and every adult person a room. Instead of defending his action in turning down the Clause on the ground that "We have never done this in regard
to slum clearance," the right hon. Gentleman pleaded the necessity in many cases for small houses. I did not expect in 1930 to hear that from the Government Front Bench. I remember very well the right hon. Gentleman's late chief, the late Member for Shettleston, making the speech about rabbit hutches, and I remember that statement being repeated on thousands of Labour platforms, in condemnation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). We are entitled to express our surprise, somewhat vehemently, at the action of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he should defend himself on such reactionary grounds. I think the right hon. Gentleman will live to regret that speech more than anything he has done in the last 12 months.

Mr. HARRIS: I am not, surprised that the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) has made his protest. I remember the pressure that had to be brought to bear in past years in order to secure the requisite amount of cubic space per person. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman saying that, as this is merely a slum clearance scheme and we have to house the very poor, we ought to be content with a lower standard.

Miss LAWRENCE: No. He did not say that.

Mr. HARRIS: It was tantamount to that. I should be glad to hear that I am wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the standard is to be maintained, I shall be satisfied. Under the old system the local authorities had to get the approval of the Minister of Health to any proposals to build new houses or tenements of a lower standard. Now, as I understand it, they are to have a free hand. There is an idea, I think it is a wrong idea, that we ought to build down to a standard of house the rent of which the very poor can pay. In the London County Council some ingenious people have been trying to devise a house for the underpaid worker at a rent which he can pay, but we were able to turn it down largely because of the existence of the Act of 1923. I have paid my tribute to the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) on many occasions. He has his faults and he has his virtues. He is a housing enthusiast, but he makes mistakes. Sometimes he keeps bad company
and sometimes he goes wrong, but he has done good work. I have a great opinion of the present Minister of Health. We want to keep him straight.
In this Clause we ought to have it made clear that some standard will be required. It is not a mere matter for the local authority, because we are partners in this matter. We are subsidising these houses out of State funds and we ought to have some say as to the kind of house that is to be built under this Bill, otherwise we may have this Bill, which is supposed to be a Housing Bill to deal with slums, used to lower the general standard of housing throughout the country. We know that there are local authorities who are faced with the need of providing houses and with the difficulty of finding money out of the rates, and there is a constant temptation to build cheaper houses. I am convinced that the local authorities ought not to attempt to build poor stuff to meet the needs of the poor. That would perpetrate slums. Therefore, we ought to have a lead from the Minister of Health as to his intentions. What standard does he require? It would be a very bad thing for the country if the purpose of this Bill is to provide a lower standard than that provided in the Act of 1023. I hope that the position will be made clear by the Parliamentary Secretary and that her reply will clear the air.

Mr. McSHANE: I agree with the last speaker that it is essential that this Bill should make it crystal clear that the standard of building must not be lowered. Anyone who knows anything about the local authorities to-day, and knows their difficulties in regard to housing the population that are on their lists waiting for houses, will know that not merely is the problem urgent and difficult, but that its very urgency and difficulty almost compel the local authorities, willy-nilly, to reduce the standard of housing. The very difficulty of the problem tends to tempt them in that direction. I can speak of my own town where, instead of our being able to reduce the number of people who are on the lists waiting for houses, as the years go by, notwithstanding the efforts of the housing committee, the lists are lengthened. No fewer than 3,400 families are to-day on that list, which increases
as the years go by. The urgency and difficulty of the problem tend to tempt the town council to build an inferior type of house. I hope, therefore, that now that the Minister is bringing forward this Bill for the purpose of helping to solve this great problem, he will make it quite clear by accepting this new Clause that the standard of housing for our people, even under the very serious difficulties of to-day, shall not be reduced. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies she will meet my right hon. Friend in that respect.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Acts of 1923 and 1924 gave subsidies for family houses and fixed a minimum and maximum standard in respect of those houses. For instance, in respect of two-storied houses the minimum was to be 620 and the maxi mum 950 superficial feet. It was the clean intention of Parliament that the local authorities should build family houses. We are dealing with something quite different now. We are taking a slum, demolishing the houses and rehousing every single person. We are providing new housing accommodation for all the displaced people. Who are the displaced people? I have been looking at the figures with regard to the slums, and it would surprise hon. Members to know that in some slums you have very few children or families, but an enormous proportion of lone persons. In other slums you have children and enormous families. Supposing you are desirous of providing accommodation for lone persons who are displaced. Yon certainly do not want a two storied house, with a minimum of 620 feet and a maximum of 950 feet. You do not want self-contained flats, but a one storied house, with a minimum of 520 feet. For the lone person, what you want is a bed-sitting room and a scullery. If there are two spinsters living together, you want a couple of rooms. You want a different class of accommodation for the family, you want a family house.

Mr. SANDHAM: What accommodation does the hon. Lady demand?

Miss LAWRENCE: What accommodation do I demand for a spinster?

Mr. SANDHAM: For yourself?

Miss LAWRENCE: I have lived in the utmost comfort and luxury in a bed-sitting room.

Mr. JOWETT: How many feet square?

Miss LAWRENCE: The point is this. The conditions asked for in the new Clause would mean that in some eases we should have to provide a family house for a household that consisted of only one or two elderly persons and in other cases, those of very large families, we should be providing accommodation that was altogether inadequate.

Mr. McSHANE: When we discussed this question of re-housing in Committee was it not made quite clear by the Minister of Health that it was not a question of taking people out of the slums and placing them in new houses, but of doing this by a process of a chain of circumstances—taking them from the slums and putting them into some intermediate accommodation and then from that accommodation into the new houses? We are anxious that the new houses, whoever their tenants are, shall not be of a lower standard than that referred to in the 1923 Act.

Miss LAWRENCE: I want to deal particularly with the question of displacing lone persons. Are you to provide only accommodation which is not suitable for lone people? We have got to provide for all sorts of people. Under the scheme of assisted rents you can provide unusually large houses at unusually cheap rates for the unusually large family, but this maximum in the Wheatley Act does not provide for the exceptional case—for such a case as I knew at Poplar of a dock labourer with 11 children. We want to make the new houses consist either of a single room or two rooms, for the tiny household of one or two adults, or to be a large house suitable for the enormous family. When hon. Members speak about the size of room, I would like to point out that the new Clause does not alter the size of rooms; it only alters the sizes of houses. If you come down to the size of rooms, what a long Schedule you would have to put in the Bill in order to determine the size of each room according to its occupation!

Mr. HARRIS: Does not Clause 44 give power to make exceptions under the Housing Act, 1923, with regard to aged persons in certain cases?

Miss LAWRENCE: You have got an exemption from the Wheatley Act, and
that is something quite different. Single-room tenements which are allowed under the slum clearance schemes would not be allowed under the Wheatley Act. What London does in its blocks of tenements is that here and there in the building you have one-roomed tenements for the single person and two or three-roomed tenements for the small family. There is a multitude of devices applying to slum clearance which are not applicable to Wheatley houses. In slum clearance, when you pull down the houses, you must provide adequate alternative accommodation for the population according to their circumstances; that is why we are taking out both the minimum and the maximum. We are giving the local authorities power, subject only to the fact that it satisfies the Minister of Health as to the type and size.

Sir T. WALTERS: I am very much alarmed at the speeches we have just heard. Instead of being engaged in a vast proposal for the housing of the working classes and their families, we are making provision to house elderly spinsters and other lone persons. If weare going to set our standard of requirements on that basis, we shall be failing to carry out our promises. I quite appreciate the difficulties with which the Minister is confronted in attempting to transfer the particular Section from the 1923 Act to this Bill. These dimensions in the 192:3 Act were for the purpose of securing a subsidy. You had to have a certain superficial area in order to secure a subsidy. That we should admit the notion of making a lower standard than 600 superficial feet for a family is absolutely appalling. In the report published some years ago an attempt was made to set up a reasonable standard of housing, and we should be very careful before departing from that standard. I do not want to encumber this Bill by a long and detailed Schedule as to the size of rooms and the like, but I do not think we can safely leave the whole question where it is. Some people always fancy that you cannot get a cheap house without having a nasty house. The whole programme of cheap houses means for them putting people into tiny rooms and building houses in the poorest possible fashion. I want cheap houses of a good standard of accommodation and workmanship.
This House will not be satisfied unless it has some assurance from the Minister of Health that provision will be inserted in the Bill to preserve a reasonable standard of size for the family house and a reasonable minimum of air space in the rooms. I suggest respectfully that it is begging the question to talk about one-roomed tenements in a block of flats as in any way affecting the issue. In a block of flats one-roomed or two-roomed tenements for various tenants come under a different category. If the Minister of Health is going to allow the local authorities either in London or elsewhere to build tiny little cramped houses of a less superficial area than 600 feet, then the last stage will be worse than the first. I do not feel inclined to accept the exact wording of the Clause, but I shall be compelled to vote for it unless the Minister of Health gives a more satisfactory assurance and explains away some of the sophistries of the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. I am not satisfied, and the country will not be satisfied, if any theory is going abroad that we are trying to lower the standard of housing and build pitiful little houses for people to live in.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Although this is not the first time I have addressed this House, it is such a long time ago that I feel I ought to ask the indulgence that is always generously accorded to those who address it for the first time. I am interested in the question of the provision of small houses for aged people. The Mover of this new Clause, while he was very anxious to improve the general standard of houses with regard to superficial feet, did not suggest that he was against the principle of providing small houses for aged people, either men or spinsters. I do not wish to prevent local authorities who desire to do so from providing small houses for aged people to be let at a very small rent. In Durham we have a voluntary organisation which provides small houses for aged people free of rent. What we do as a voluntary organisation, I feel can be done by the local authority. Of course, you will not be able to let them free of rent, but you will be able to let them at very low rents, and by so doing you will perform a useful social service.
We have in Durham 1;700 houses for 3,000 aged people. These are very small in superficial feet, below the normal required under the 1923 Act. They are down to the very minimum, 500 square feet, but these houses are admittedly adequate for their purpose and are splendid little dwellings. Every visitor who has been to Durham and examined them has admired them and said how splendid they were for the purpose for which they were erected. The councils can do this work of providing small houses for aged people, and I am very anxious that the Clause in the Bill dealing with the provision of these houses shall remain in. I am sure the House will do the wise thing in passing Clause 44, the purpose of which was to provide small houses, because it is a social benefit, and will be of enormous value. I think I shall rest content if I see that done.

Sir K. WOOD: What about the new Clause?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: I understand that the Mover of it and those who supported it have not the slightest intention to interfere with the principle of Clause 44. I want to see a general improvement in the standard of tenements. If you carry out the provisions of this Bill, the development will be beneficial, and you will find it a very excellent thing because you will be providing small cottages for the aged people who need them, and that will keep the old people out of institutions. A small cottage in the country for the old people will be much better than a cubicle in an institution.

Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: I think that we should have the contents of this Bill made clear. When the Conservative party were in power the Minister of Health opposed this proposal again and again, quite regardless of the implications and without any regard to a sense of proportion. Now the right hon. Gentleman is taking the opposite role. One of the most difficult points of criticism raised against the scheme for small tenements or buildings has not yet been mentioned. I have always been foremost amongst those demanding better provision for the aged people, and what we propose releases a large amount of accommodation which would otherwise be occupied for less
important purposes. There is a good deal to be said in favour of small tenements. It is a fact that many people prefer smaller rooms, as long as they are healthy and sufficient for the needs of the family, because smaller rooms can be furnished and kept clean more easily. Hon. Members speak on this question forgetting altogether the views of the housewife. On this point I have been face to face with a definite proposition. A large employer of labour who desired to assist his employés to get out of their old houses built for them a large row of new houses. That employer was quite unable to persuade most of his employés to move into the new houses, and when he inquired what was the reason for this, it was found that the employés were of the opinion that the new houses were too large, that they did not want to have extra staircases and landings to clean, and there was much less space to be kept clean in their old houses.
When the Conservative party were dealing with this question we were face to face with the bitter opposition of the whole of the Labour party on the ground of insufficiency of accommodation, and they refused to allow us to make provision for exceptional cases. It is proposed to provide smaller houses with two or three rooms for the old couples, and for the young couples with only one child. How are you going to prevent those small houses being used for larger families? The Government have always to reckon with that difficulty, and that is an experience which has been borne out by the speech of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Herriotts). Are you going to prevent the newly-married couples from living in those houses? Are you going to turn them out when their families increase? And if you have no power to deal with this problem, how are you going to prevent those tenements becoming overcrowded?
We ought to have from the Minister of Health a clear defence of the position which he has taken up. Probably the right hon. Gentleman will raise the defence that provision is made under the by-laws dealing with housing, but we know that no by-laws can be devised that will prevent overcrowding, which is the worst feature of the housing position to-day. It is overcrowding in the slum areas that makes the slum, and how are
you going to stop that? If you devise a system of by-laws, how are you going to enforce them? The Minister of Health cannot ride off on this issue as easily as the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to do. This is a very serious problem and in spending this large amount of money to provide small houses, the right hon. Gentleman should envisage the people living in those houses 40 years hence, with slums probably growing up in those areas, and people saying, "Those are the houses which were built under the Greenwood subsidy."

Mr. BUCHANAN: No one can complain of the moderate speech which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jewett), and instead of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) complaining because the Government have copied the Act of 1923, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to take that as a compliment. We have adopted the words of the 1923 Act because we did not wish to embarrass the Government, and we did not wish to put forward anything which could be called an extravagant standard. I know speeches were made in the 1923 debate denouncing that standard, because we desired to have a higher and a better standard. We have taken this course because we wanted to make the task of the Minister of Health much easier, and we did not wish to embarrass him by setting up a standard which might be thought to be too high. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich can take whatever consolation he likes from the fact that we have copied the 1923 Act, but I would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that even that standard was denounced by himself and other members of the Conservative party, and it was got through only after a good deal of opposition from the Labour party because we thought a higher standard ought to be adopted.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this scheme differs from the Chamberlain scheme because it shuts down the slum clearance area and transports the whole of the population into another area. When you do that, you must make accommodation not for one type of family, but for every type of family. Let me remind the House that we are spending State money to pro-
vide for these people, and by far the overwhelming proportion of them consists of men, women, and children. Let me take for example, the City of Glasgow. There the overwhelming mass of the people to be provided for are people with families. You have to provide for old people, but once you adopt a standard in the House of Commons, it does not become the standard for a section but for every particular family regardless of exceptions. When you are talking about this problem, you ought to take into account whether you are dealing with people in a village or a town, and whether there is within that town or village already enough of that class of accommodation for all the people living there. What is the position in Glasgow? Nobody can deny that Glasgow and other big cities and towns have built small dwellings in abundance in the past, and that there is enough of them now for every requirement for the type of person who requires a small dwelling. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] An hon. Member says "No," but we do not want to set up a fixed standard, because some person might be offered a house, and might refuse it because it was too large.
The Labour party are in favour of making the accommodation slightly larger, because most of the houses which have been provided are too small for the general mass of the people. We know what has been the attitude of the local authorities in the past. We know that the rates play a more important part than human considerations. Every member of a local authority knows that at election times when the cry for reduced rates comes along human considerations are swept aside. Hon. Members are well aware of that fact, and that is the reason why we ought to set up a standard which no local authority ought to be allowed to set aside. Upon local authorities where the Labour party is in control we have no need for this new Clause, because Labour councillors will always see that the standards are kept up. I am more concerned for those districts where there is not a Labour majority, and I think they should have as good a standard as a Labour majority would give them. The argument is often put forward that you
should not touch a slum area because there are a few aged people there. My own view is that we should make the standard as high as possible. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give way on this new Clause.

Major GLYN: I think that the House, and especially those Members who did not have the benefit of being on the Committee which considered this Bill, owe a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jowett) for having introduced this Clause. When the 1923 Bill was going through, the present Minister and many of his friends said a good deal with regard to the inadequacy of the standard that was laid down in that Bill, but on the present Bill we have hitherto heard nothing about the standard, which now seems suddenly to have appeared in a most surprising manner. Those Members who were not on the Committee always assumed—at any rate I did—that under Clause 44 there would be no departure from a certain standard. I imagine that that standard existed throughout the whole Bill, and, therefore, it comes as a great shock to me when the Minister of Health apparently takes the retrograde step of doing away with what we then thought was a sufficient and proper standard, but which he at that time did not think sufficient. It seems to me that if we allow this Bill to go on to the Statute Book it will be pointed out that what was considered necessary in 1923 is not considered necessary in 1930, whereas we know that, if a slum area is to be cleared, the most modern kind of buildings is necessary.
In earlier years I represented a Glasgow constituency, and the experience that I had there, in association with Mr. Peter Fyfe, who was a very enlightened sanitary inspector, proved to me conclusively that, if you put people in mean rooms of small dimensions, you do not help them to become clean, healthy citizens. The meaner the surroundings, the more difficult it is for the family to rise superior to them. None of us want to condemn people to remain in slum conditions, but we want the help of hon. Members opposite, and, indeed, of all local authorities and all housing advisers and societies throughout the country, to sweep away the great
evil that, if you give a slum person a decent room, and if they have any spare accommodation, they will take in lodgers, often at a very high price, so that what was intended to be adequate accommodation for one family as far as children are concerned is turned into slum conditions again. There are many who feel the desirability of having well-proportioned rooms of decent size, with proper air space and so on, but whose feelings have been devastated by the fact that we find overcrowded conditions in some of the most modern buildings. I am certain that the Minister is aware of that fact, and realises that a slum can be re-created under the most modern conditions. If local regulations are not properly carried out, and any number of people are allowed to live in the place, what is, from the building point of view, a most suitable edifice, will become a most hideous slum. In spite of that, I feel that it is essential that there should be in every Bill a minimum standard of what is necessary. Such a standard was laid down in 1923, and I am amazed that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are able to accept this Amendment, which, after all, does not ask for anything more than that which we thought necessary in 1923, and which the right hon. Gentleman then thought insufficient.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: We have listened to a very eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), who put the case in favour of a high standard of housing as forcibly and probably as well as it could be put. But, like many Members on the other side of the House, he overlooked the foundations of this Bill, namely, the financial Clauses. The whole point is at what rent a given standard of house can be let, and, if you want to let a house of a good standard at a low rent, you have to have a corresponding subsidy. The subsidy under this Bill is fixed, and we on these benches moved an Amendment which sought to make it rather more generous. What has been brought out more than anything else in this discussion is the fact that this Bill is not a great Bill for building another 100,000 working-class houses to be let at low rents. That is the Bill that is wanted, but it is not this Bill. Hon. Members opposite have not yet understood that unfortunate fact—

Mr. MAXTON: Surely, the late Mr. Wheatley put that ease very strongly.

Mr. SIMON: Perhaps some hon. Members understand it, but I am not quite sure that they all do. The right hon. Gentleman, like others on those benches, certainly recognises the main point that this is not a Bill for building large numbers of family houses, but is a Slum Clearance Bill, and, indeed, rather a tentative Slum Clearance Bill; but, even so, I was deeply perturbed at the speeches of the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, because the stress of those speeches seemed to emphasise the importance of building smaller houses. I think I am correct in saying that in Slum Clearance Bills in the past there has not been any minimum standard laid down. In the Bills of 1923 and 1024, which were Bills for the building of new houses, there was a minimum standard, but in Slum Clearance Bills there has not been a minimum standard, and it has always been recognised that a certain flexibility is necessary. Even the London County Council has built smaller houses for slum clearance purposes. Therefore, it seems to me quite clear that we could not, without asking for disaster, accept this Amendment in the form in which it has been moved. I think that it would cause very serious difficulties in that form, and, therefore. I hope that the House will not accept it, but I wish again to say how perturbed we have been by the speeches of the Minister. I have felt hitherto that it was safe to leave this question of the standard in slum clearance houses in the hands of the Minister, who, as I understand, has complete discretion in the matter. After his speech, however, I feel uncertain about that. I hope that he will reassure us, and that, if his reassurance is not satisfactory, hon. Members opposite, when it comes to administration, will see that the Bill is administered in such a way as not to let down what is, after all, the main object of post-War housing, namely, the new standard of housing which has been adopted.

Mr. STRACHEY: As far as I could understand it, the defence offered by the Parliamentary Secretary in rejecting this Amendment was the need for some elasticity in the size of the houses which would be provided for rehousing the
people in slum clearance schemes, because there would be all sorts and sizes of families, from one to nine or 10. That is a common-sense point that we can all understand, and I see the difficulty of accepting this Amendment, which rather standardises the type of house to be built for slum clearance purposes at one particular size which would not fit the means of all persons coming from the slums. Surely, however, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, while they make that point, realise the anxiety that we feel at the fact that there is no minimum standard in this Bill, and, surely, there would be no difficulty in devising a minimum standard which would meet that objection. I am not myself nearly enough of an expert on this subject to be able to suggest one off-hand, but the first that occurs to one is that there should be a minimum number of cubic feet for each person rehoused, and that the local authorities should be forbidden to rehouse a person with less than a certain minimum of cubic feet. There might be a certain number of cubic feet per adult person rehoused, and a certain other number per juvenile rehoused, to meet the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary on that matter, and, if that could be done, some of the objections of my hon. Friend here would be met.
Cannot the Minister tell us that at any rate he will put some minimum provision into this Bill? I think I am right in saying that, unless he does that, this will be the first Housing Measure that has passed through this House which does not provide some minimum below which a municipal authority cannot build and obtain the subsidy. [Interruption.] I am told that that is not the case, but, anyhow, I think it would be following a bad precedent to follow those Bills which do not lay down some standard. After all, the Minister tells us that he will be administering the Measure and will keep the standards up, but his successors may not be so favourably inclined. We feel very strongly indeed that a safeguard of some sort is required in this Bill, and, unless the Minister can explain to us why a safeguard, either of cubic feet per person rehoused or some other formula of that sort, is unworkable, we shall feel the greatest difficulty in supporting him in this matter.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not in the least complain that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. Jowett) should have taken the opportunity of drawing attention to what I said in 1923, but the position in 1923 was this. The Bill of 1923, probated by a Conservative Government, was deliberratcly designed to promote private enterprise, and was concerned primarily with the building of houses for sale—houses which would not be under the control of any local authority, and which, once out of their control, might easly have been overcrowded had there been no minimum requirement. That was a point that was most strongly pressed. There was also the further point that the great post-War problem which assailed us as soon as we turned to the problem of housing was the need for an enormous number of family houses for normal families, and, in order to ensure that the houses so built should be fit for the normal family, it was necessary to prescribe minimum conditions. It has already been pointed out, although many hon. Members do not appear to realise it, that with regard to slum clearance that kind of provision has never operated at all. You can go round the slum clearance schemes to-day, and, without the imposition of any standard, you will find there houses every bit as good as those which have been built under the 1923 and 1924 Acts. That is A statement which can be put to the proof. Why is that so? It is because the local authorities have acted with a sense of responsibility, and have had regard to the needs of the people.

Mr. JOWETT: I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he has realised that there is a new method of calculation now? The subsidy is per person, and the inducement, therefore, is to overcrowd more than before.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I cannot go into that question on this Clause, but, if I had time, I could assure my right hon. Friend that that fear is quite unfounded. It is the case that we have not had these conditions in the past, and I do not think any charge has been made that, in the slum clearance schemes which have been carried out, there has been a degradation of standard. I do not want to degrade housing standards; that is the very last thing in
the world that I should want to do. I should prefer to see standards raised. But we have to have regard to the population living in an area which is to be cleared. It is not a case of local authorities providing houses for normal families. You are making a cross-section through the people of this country—the people who live in a particular area—and you may find that your minimum and maximum requirements with regard to superficial area will not meet all the cases. The point that I want to put to the House is this. Are we in all circumstances always to provide houses of 600 feet odd? Is that the suggestion? [Interruption.] The suggestion is that there can be no rehousing—

Mr. JOWETT: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again, but I suggested that the Minister should specify some standard, such as a certain superficial area per room, so as to leave him able to subdivide houses.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We are perhaps getting a little nearer agreement, but what we have to provide is that local authorities shall at both ends of the scale be able to provide accommodation which is abnormal, either smaller than the average or larger. It is clear that local authorities must be in a position to provide houses larger than can be built under the Wheatley Act, and one wants elasticity at both ends. If the House will be satisfied that, in so far as we are building houses of the type built under the 1923 and 1924 Acts, with elasticity at both ends, that standard shall be maintained, I am prepared to see that that is done in another place, but I must keep latitude for dealing with lone people on the one hand and with large families on the other. It would mean that in all these clearance schemes the two and three bedroom houses would conform to the standard of the 1923 and the 1924 Acts. If that will meet the wish of the House, I will see that it is done in another place.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am not satisfied with the statement the Minister has just made. He told us that local authorities in most of the slum clearance cases had built the sort of accommodation that he would like, because he said they had a sense of responsibility. When we are granting money, it seems to me that we
should have a sense of responsibility, too. In this Clause it is not a question of settling any maximum standard, as the Minister would seem to lead us to believe, but a minimum standard. With regard to the lone people and so on, Clause 44 quite clearly provides that the Minister may make regulations for them. That seems to meet the case of those persons. It seemed to me that the Under-Secretary was only dealing with this Bill as if it was a temporary Measure, but it is a permanent Measure. I hope it is going to build permanent houses. It is no good building permanent houses for a particular lot of people that you remove from one particular area. The lone person may die, or the two spinsters may die, and then other people will come in and inhabit the houses, and immediately you get a certain amount of overcrowding. It is quite clearly overcrowding that makes the slums. There are excellent houses in South London, but there are three or four families living in a house that was designed for one family. You get exactly the same thing if you get a family living in two or three rooms which were really designed for the lone person or the spinster we talk of, and when you are building houses under a scheme of this sort, you have to look a little further afield than the immediate problem of resettling people from one small area, otherwise you are only building houses which, in their turn, will become a slum area themselves, and, instead of getting a slum clearance scheme, you will, if you are not careful, be creating another slum with monies provided by Parliament.
I should not like to see this minimum standard laid down for local authorities who, after all, are being helped by Parliament to provide these houses. A large number of us who have occasion to practise in the courts know some of the effects of crowded housing conditions. One hears cases in the county courts of scandalous over-crowding, and one knows criminal cases which have undoubtedly arisen from those overcrowded conditions. I do not want to see a retrograde step taken which will put back the standard of housing that previous Parliaments have laid down. I do not want the House of which I am a Member in 1030 to go back to the state of things in
1923 and 1924 and, for that reason, I hope we shall not be content with what the Minister has said but shall press the Amendment to a Division.

Mr. JOWETT: After the promise which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition of restriction with respect to form of light, heat, and power.)

Where contributions are or shall become payable to any local authority under this Act or under the Housing Act, 1923, or under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, such local authority shall not after the commencement of this Act make of impose any term, condition, or restriction with respect to the form of light, heat, power, or energy to be used in any house provided by them under any of the said Act or Acts or with respect to the taking from any particular local authority, company, body, or person of any form of light, heat, power, or energy for use in any such house.—[Mr. Womersley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I bring this forward at the request of the National Gas Council, which consists of representatives, both of those who are managing gas companies throughout the country and those who represent the workmen in that industry. A peculiar position has arisen inasmuch as certain local authorities who own housing estates have stipulated that those who occupy the houses shall only employ, to give power, light or heat, the medium that they themselves nominate. It is a new principle in local government and I am certain that, if it had been a private owner of an estate who had suggested this to his tenants, we should have heard a good deal about it in the House of Commons. When I read a letter that has recently been sent to a tenant on a corporation housing estate, the House will understand why I am moving the Clause. This is written from the town clerk's office at Barnsley:
Dear Sir, or Madam,
It has been brought to the notice of the Corporation that the gas company have been canvassing tenants of the corporation's
houses with a view to having gas installed. I am therefore, instructed to inform you that by the terms of your tenancy you are not entitled to agree to the gas company installing gas in your premises without the previous consent in writing of your landlord, the corporation. In no circumstances, therefore, must you permit gas to be installed in your premises. If this is done, it will be regarded as a breach of the conditions of your tenancy and the council will be compelled to serve notice to quit and take steps to obtain possession of your house.
It is a strange sound to my ears to hear the cheers of hon. Members opposite, who get up in the market place and talk about the liberty of the subject. If this had come from a private owner, instead of cheers we should have had protestations and groans. There is grave alarm in the ranks of the working men engaged in this industry. I was approached by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), who is an official of the union, and also by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne), who is also concerned in the matter. There were certain Members opposite who, when the Clause first came before the Committee, put their names to it but, for some mysterious reason, withdrew them on the very morning when the question came up. If hon. Members want a little more evidence of what is felt in the matter from their own side, let me read a resolution passed by the National Joint Industrial Council of the gas industry, representing both sides again of the industry.
This council views with concern the fact that in certain cases local authorities, by inserting conditions in leases and in other ways, have interfered with the liberty of choice of their tenants in determining what forms of light, heat and power they will use in their houses, and considers that all tenants of council houses should be free to use whatever form of lighting, heating, &c., they may desire. The council, therefore, urges the Minister of Health to take the steps necessary to prohibit local authorities from imposing in any way any condition or restriction with regard to the form of light, heat and power to be used in any house, shop, office or other building, owned and controlled by them, or with regard to the taking from any particular local authority, company, body or person of any form of light, heat or power.
I suggest that the tenant should have the right to select the medium of either lighting, heating or power that he himself desires. Surely we have not come to this, that we have to be dragooned into doing what other people think we ought to do rather than be allowed to do what we
think is best in our own interest. From the point of view of the individual I am all out for liberty every time.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is it in order for an hon. Member to move a Clause which repeals part of an Act which is not before the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): The Clause is in order.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: This matter was brought before the House in 1925 in connection with the Newport Corporation Act, and a Clause was inserted that,
The Corporation shall not make or impose, under the powers of this section, any term, condition or restriction with respect to the form of light, heat, power or energy to be used in Any house, shop, office, warehouse or other building or on any lands or with respect to the taking from any particular local authority, company, body or person of any form of light, power, heat or energy.
I am asking that the same restriction shall be put in as regards this matter. We are providing the national money of the taxpayers to subsidise the building of these houses, and to say that a certain form of light, heat or power shall be used and another forbidden, to my mind, is not in any way a fair deal. The question is becoming one of considerable importance, particularly to those who are engaged in the gas industry, because it is estimated that already there are something like 80,000 houses on which restrictions have been imposed, and that is the reason why those who are interested in the welfare of workers in the industry are becoming alarmed. What you require is fair competition as between the two systems of providing heat, light and power. Is a monopoly of one particular body, whether a private company or a municipally owned company, going to be in the best interests of the persons who have to use either of these mediums for lighting, heating and power? It is reasonable competition as between the two forms that has brought about the system whereby we have been able to get cheaper gas and cheaper electricity. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheaper labour!"] I am quite prepared to leave that in the hands of the hon. Member for Plaistow and the hon. Member for West Nottingham; they can deal with it quite well on behalf of their workmen.
I suggest that the fact that we have had this competition has tended to the
good and the welfare of the people who use these forms of light, heat and power. It is not right that any owners of property, whether private owners or a corporation with a housing estate, should say to the tenant that he must do what he is told and take light, heat and power from them at the price they like to charge? In many cases corporations are charging a fixed standard rate whether the people use the equivalent amount or not. Tenants have to accept this sort of thing whether they like it or not, and I say that it is not fair and not British. [Laughter.] I hope that hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member who is now laughing, when they get back to their constituencies and have to face some of their gas workers, will realise the position.

Dr. DAVIES: I beg to second the Motion.
This matter was raised in Committee and defeated there. To Members on this side of the House this matter has proved an interesting exhibition of the love, good will and harmony existing among the Members of the Government. We find members of the gas industry keenly interested in their own affairs and the members of the electrical industry up against them, and on the other hand we have the members of the electricity industry very keenly looking after their own affairs to the detriment of their brother workers in the gas industry. Before hon. Members opposite have the effrontery to come down to this House to speak of the unanimity with Which Labour Members work together, of their good will towards each other and of their love for international action and their desire to see all the workers of the world united, it would be as well for the workers of this country, first of all, to unite and agree upon a common ground of policy on such a matter. We were told in Committee that a protest had been made by members of the gas industry trade unions because they found that in a certain district they were being penalised unduly due to the existence of a municipal electrical undertaking. Naturally, we thought that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary would have expressed some sympathy with these people and have done all they could to help them. I would like to read
a few of the words which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned in Committee.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not in Committee now.

Dr. DAVIES: Am I to understand that we are not allowed to quote from anything which was said in Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, but hon. Members can only make one speech on an Amendment.

Dr. DAVIES: I am sure the hon. Lady will be glad that I am not to have an opportunity of refreshing her memory. The plain fact is that the hon. Lady was definitely against the Amendment and in favour of municipalities having the power to say to people of the district what light or power they should use. If the municipality decided that the people were to use electricity, then electricity they must have whether gas was there or not. That sort of thing is an undue interference with the liberty of the subject. Naturally we expect that sort of thing from hon. Members opposite, but we on this side, as Members of the House of Commons representing the public, wish to enter a protest and say that the time has not yet come when all the people in this country or in a municipality should be dragooned by the municipal authority into doing things which they do not want to do.

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has said, this Clause has previously been discussed. Behind the Clause itself, of course, is the struggle between public enterprise and private enterprise.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Oh, no.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is really what this Clause is about. The Clause is promoted by the gas industry, because it does not think that the local authority which owns an alternative supply should impose restrictions upon their tenants. That is what I understand all the trouble to be about. This Clause has certainly not emanated from the tenants. We have had no complaints from tenants about the matter; all the complaints have come from the private gas companies.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Oh, no.

Mr. GREENWOOD: It ill becomes gas companies to talk about the liberty of the subject. In the nature of things the distribution of gas is a monopoly, and the local consumer has to take the gas company's gas good or bad.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: No. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a test.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We are told—I have no opportunity of checking the figures—that there are something like 80,000 houses where these restrictions apply. I would remind the House that we have built about 1,500,000 houses since the War, and, therefore, on the hon. Gentleman's own showing there is really not much substance in his case. He is asking for a limitation of the freedom of local authorities. Let us consider how local authorities have exercised their discretion in the past. I say—and hon. Members know that it is so—that in regard to 90 per cent. of the municipal houses which are built in this country the usual form is to provide electricity for lighting and gas for heating and cooking. That is the normal arrangement. It is only in very isolated cases where the local authority insists upon the tenants consuming electricity for lighting purposes and does not allow them the use of gas. In those circumstances, and in view of the fact that local authorities have acted reasonably in the matter, it is most unreasonable to put these municipal authorities under a restriction of this kind and to which they could not tamely submit. If a gas company were to house their own employés and had their own tenants one of the first things they would do would be to compel those tenants to take the company's gas. I can see no difference in that position from the case of the local authority who only permit the use of electricity. No one wants gas for lighting purposes if they can get electricity, but they do require gas for heating purposes and for cooking. In view of the fact that that is the normal arrangement and that the best figure that the hon. Member can produce is one of 80,000 houses where there are restrictions, I hope that the House will reject the Clause so that no limitation is imposed upon public authorities in the interests of private enterprise.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this Clause. I can assure him from my own personal knowledge, that this is not a question either of public enterprise versus private enterprise, or of gas companies versus electricity undertakings. I have in my Division—and any Member of the House of Commons can test the matter for himself—a case which is illustrative of the need for a Clause of this kind. The local authority in Woolwich have erected a number of houses on their housing estate without making any provision for coal fires. Throughout the whole of their administration of this area they have definitely refused the tenants the right to have any kind of heating or lighting other than electricity. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with him, that it was sensible, decent and proper that a local authority should say, "You must take your lighting from the electricity authority, and for heating you must use the gas supply." The Socialist Borough Council of Woolwich—and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health knows a good deal about it now; much more than he did a year ago—has actually had the audacity to say to the tenants, "You shall not have any kind of heating or lighting except from the Electricity Authority." The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said, "Oh, this was a quarrel of the gas company." I can assure him that it was nothing of the kind. A very large number of the tenants on this particular estate have, from my own knowledge, complained most bitterly of their treatment, and rightly so. In the first place, they are not given the elementary right, which one would have thought they would have had and which hon. Members and I would desire to have, to say what kind of heating they wished to have provided for them.
I should have thought that no one in this House would have supported a proposition of that kind. As I have said, in a large number of these houses the tenants cannot have a coal fire, and as a result many tenants last winter found that in having to pay lighting and heating charges, a considerable sum had to be added to the rents of the houses administered by this Socialist council. If any hon. Member cares to visit a few of the houses and ask what this has
meant not only from the point of view of freedom of choice but from the point of view of cost, he will find that this condition has added tremendously to the rents. Tenants have told me that they have been in the position during winter time of having to pay a considerable addition to their rent owing to cost of heating and power.

Mr. McSHANE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the specific amount?

Sir K. WOOD: A considerable amount. Obviously they must pay the amount. There can be no denial of the fact that they have to do that or do without proper heat in the winter time. In a very large number of cases it has proved to be a considerable hardship.

Mr. McSHANE: The right hon. Gentleman has not given us any figures.

6.0 p.m.

Sir K. WOOD: Apart from that fact, no one should be able to say to the tenant of a house which has been built partly by State money, "You are to have a particular kind of heating and lighting." Why should not a tenant of a house on a municipal estate be in the same position as hon. Members of this House and be able to have what kind of heating and lighting he desires? It is a monstrous piece of tryanny. I do not base this case at all upon the opposition of the workers in the gas industry. I think that they have a right to complain, and I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) ought to be here this afternoon to put the case of his union. The workers in the gas industry have as much right to have their position considered as have the employés of any local authority. It is an elementary right that people who find themselves on these estates should not have to buy according to the dictates of some few people, not of much importance, on a Socialist council, who are in this way able to impose their will and add greatly to the difficulties and expenses. I am disappointed that the Minister of Health, who in many ways has shown that he has learnt a good deal in the last 12 months, has not seen his way to accept this new Clause. It would do something to prove that, after all, there is a little freedom left in the country even under a Socialist Government. I
hope we shall divide on this new Clause unless the right hon. Gentleman changes his mind.

Captain GUNSTON: The discussion of this new Clause and the jeers of hon. Members opposite show what we may expect if we ever get Socialism in our time. They were, obviously, very uncomfortable when the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) was giving his experience of housing conditions at Woolwich, and I have yet to learn that members of the working classes have not as much right to a coal fire as hon. Members opposite. One of the most astounding proceedings in the Committee upstairs was when hon. Members opposite put their names to an Amendment and afterwards took them off. The Minister of Health says that in practice local authorities are reasonable and that there are only a few cases in which this new Clause would be necessary. If that is so, he might well accept it. We say that people living in these houses have the right to alternative light and heat. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Miss Wilkinson) is as keen as I am on the installation of electrical appliances in working-class homes, because it saves the housewife a good deal of work, but electricity for cooking is not yet as Cheap as we would like to see it; and gas is cheaper. It is monstrous to say to people with small incomes, and when there is such a tremendous amount of unemployment, that they must go in for the more expensive form of cooking and heating—

Miss WILKINSON: In many places they pay for electricity in the rent—a certain amount according to the rate.

Captain GUNSTON: My experience is that the cost of electricity supplied by municipalities is not very cheap. If this Clause is not accepted, it means that we are laying down the principle that local authorities can say to people in these houses that they can only buy this and that. In fact, we are laying it down as a principle that a person living in a municipal house shall go only to the co-operative stores or to the municipal stores. That is why hon. Members opposite are so keen for the Clause to be rejected. Let me put the point of view of the workers in the gas industry. They are competing in the matter of heating
and cooking with a supply which in most cases is cheaper, and they demand fair play. What happens? That demand is taken up by hon. Members opposite. They support it upstairs, but then the cock crows, or the whip cracks, they withdraw their names. Once again hon. Members opposite are prepared to sacrifice the interests of the workers to worn-out political theories.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I desire to take part in this discussion not as representing a gas company or an electrical undertaking, but as representing the right of the subject to choose whatever he may prefer, whether it is gas or electricity. The Minister of Health has told us that this will affect only 85,000 houses, but in that case it will affect between 300,000 and 400,000 people, and if local authorities are not behaving properly to this number of people it is right that a Clause should be inserted to prevent them from abusing their authority. That is what we ask by this new Clause. I believe the Minister of Health had a letter from the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) on behalf of the gas workers asking him to support this new Clause. Hon. Members opposite say that we have given no definite cases, that we have given no proofs. I have raised the question two or three times in the House by means of questions, and only yesterday I received a reply in regard to the Buckland housing estate in which the Parliamentary Secretary said that she was looking into the matter. In this case the tenants have complained that the Dover Town Council have decided to postpone a decision giving the Dover Gas Company permission to run gas mains on the Buckland housing estate. The decision has disappointed the inhabitants of these houses and many protests have been made. In addition it is stopping work; and there are some thousands of unemployed in Dover.

Mr. McSHANE: Is that a Socialist council?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I do not care whether it is a Socialist council or a Tory council, there should be freedom of choice. In another case the tenants say that gas is wanted because cooking by electricity is so expensive; 95 per cent. of them desire to have gas. So far they have been refused, and it seems to
me to be very childish to prevent a private trading company from supplying gas because the corporation has a municipally-owned electricity undertaking. There is also the case at Wrexham, but the worst case of all is the one at Barnsley, where 181 tenants were threatened with ejection because they had gas fitted in their houses. Gas is very much cheaper than electricity for cooking purposes; electricity is not suitable, and there is a good gas supply. Is it right that tenants of houses which have been built with public money should be prevented from choosing whether they will have gas or electricity? I do not care which they have, but I do think that there should be freedom of choice, and that if a tenant chooses to have one form of light and heating he should not be told that he must leave his house. That is an intolerable injustice. It is almost

an infringement of the Truck Acts, which were passed to prevent employers imposing as a condition of employment that their employés should buy from stores run by the employer. This is very much on a par with that, and it seems to me to be a legal point as to whether it is not an infringement of the Truck Acts to compel tenants of these houses to take the supply which is run by the municipality which has built the houses. The new Clause would prevent these tenants being run by a municipality for its own benefit. They should have freedom of choice, and I hope the Government will accept the proposal.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 254.

Division No. 419.]
AYES.
[6.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
England, Colonel A.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Atkinson, C.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beaumont, M. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Berry, Sir George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Muirhead, A. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, Sir Robert
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grace, John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Boyce, H. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bracken, B.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Brass, Captain Sir William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd'., Hexham)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buchan, John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsbotham, H.


Butler, R. A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Carver, Major W. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hanbury, C.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Haslam, Henry C.
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Savery, S. S.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cowan, D. M.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerset, Thomas


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir F.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Tinne, J. A.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Train, J.
Wells, Sydney R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Turton, Robert Hugh
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Withers, Sir John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor


Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.
Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mort, D. L.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Moses, J. J. H.


Arnott, John
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Aske, Sir Robert
Hardie, George D.
Muggeridge, H. T,


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Murnin, Hugh


Ayles, Walter
Hartsborn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Nathan, Major H. L.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Naylor, T. E.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Haycock, A. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P. J.


Barr, James
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oldfield, J. R.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bellamy, Albert
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C)
Harriotts, J.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Benson, G.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palmer, E. T.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Birkett, W. Norman
Hopkin, Daniel
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Horrabin, J. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Bowerman, Ht. Hon. Charles W.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Pole, Major D. G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.


Brooke, W.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Pybus, Percy John


Brothers, M.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kennedy, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burgess, F. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ritson, J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kirkwood, D.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.


Cameron, A. G.
Lathan, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cape, Thomas
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Rowson, Guy


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Chater, Daniel
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Staiybridge)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Church, Major A. G.
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Clarke, J. S.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandham, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scott, James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scrymgeour, E.


Compton, Joseph
Logan, David Gilbert
Sexton, James


Cove, William G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Daggar, George
Longden, F.
Sherwood, G. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William


Davies, E. C. (Mentgomery)
Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


Dickson, T.
McEntee, V. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dukes, C.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Simmons, C. J.


Duncan, Charles
McKinlay, A.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Ede, James Chuter
MacLaren, Andrew
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Edmunds, J. E.
McShane, John James
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sinkinson, George


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Egan, W. H.
March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Elmley, Viscount
Marcus, M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighlay)


Foot, Isaac
Marley, J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Freeman, Peter
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Mathers, George
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Matters, L. W.
Snell, Harry


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maxton, James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gibbins, Joseph
Messer, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Middleton, G.
Sorensen, R.


Gillett, George M.
Millar, J. D.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Glassey, A. E.
Milner, Major J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Gossling, A. G.
Montague, Frederick
Strauss, G. R.


Gray, Milner
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sullivan, J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A, (Colne).
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tinker, John Joseph




Tout, W. J.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Townend, A. E.
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Turner, B.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Vaughan, D. J.
West, F. R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Viant, S. P.
Westwood, Joseph
Wise, E. F.


Walker, J.
White, H. G.
Wood, Major McKezie (Banff)


Wallace, H. W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Wallhead, Richard C.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.



Watkins, F. C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Mr. Paling and Mr. William Whiteley.


Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Local authority may declare unhealthy area to be clearance area.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out the words from the word "or" in line 16, to the word "are," in line 17.
This Amendment and the next one I shall move are inserted purely in the interests of grammatical construction. They make no difference in the sense.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 3, after the word "area," insert the words:
and that the other buildings, if any, in the area are for a like reason dangerous or injurious to the health of the said inhabitants."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, after the word "map," to insert the words:
in such manner as to exclude from the area any building which is not unfit for human habitation or dangerous or injurious to health.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: When this matter was before the Standing Committee, it was proved that bit by bit the "area" was being riddled so that we could no longer recognise it as an area. It was riddled by bits being cut out of it or off it, and now under this Amendment by buildings being cut out of it. The "area" remaining is more like a sieve and may be entirely unrecognisable as an area. It was generally understood, after rather long discussion in Committee, that to describe what was left as an "area" was an entire misdescription and might be misleading. I thought it was understood that the Attorney-General would see whether he could not devise some words which would meet the case. Has that been found absolutely impossible?

Amendment agreed to.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14, after the word "that," to insert the words "in so far as."
In Committee it was desired to make it perfectly clear that the alternative accommodation to be provided might be provided by public utility societies or even by owners. These words are to cover the case where a public utility society may be ready to provide the accommodation for the persons displaced.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out the words from the word "area" to the word "in" in line 17, and to insert instead thereof the words:
does not already exist, the authority can provide, or secure the provision of, such accommodation.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted in the Bill."

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the word "can," and to insert instead thereof the word "will."
We had a long and interesting discussion in the Standing Committee as to the relative values of these words. We understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that it was really a matter of moods and tenses. That was not our object in moving the Amendment. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide alternative accommodation for the people of the working class who are moved out of the slums. If you remove 100 people you have to provide new accommodation or build new houses to accommodate 100 people. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was impossible for any man to say that he "will" provide such a thing in future. I would again press upon the attention of the Minister that "will" is the better word. We are not dealing here with individuals, but with a corporate entity, the local authority. If certain members of it die, its work is still
carried on by their successors. If you say that a local authority "will" do a certain thing it is very much stronger than saying that it "can." It is quite easy for a local authority to say that it can provide accommodation, but we want to strengthen the Bill and to make absolutely certain that the authority "will" provide, or secure the provision of, such accommodation. I hope that now the Minister can meet us by accepting this Amendment.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am afraid that I must stand, as I did in Committee, by the word "can." I ask the House to consider the point reached by the local authority. They are contemplating houses. Before they can pass a Resolution they have to see what is necessary, to see what accommodation they can provide, and to ascertain the cost. Clause 9 provides that they have to satisfy the Minister that they are in fact ready and willing and prepared to provide the accommodation necessary. What in this case we are asking them to do is to count the cost, to see what is necessary and to see whether their finances will bear the cost. Without wearying the House too long on the question as between "can" and "will," I say that in this case we think "can" is the proper word.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out the words "to be."
The Amendment and one which follows are drafting Amendments. The second is to meet a point urged by the London County Council, that in the case of that great authority two months is too short a time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 29, leave out the words from the word "statement" to the word "were" in line 31.—[Miss Lawrence.]

In line 35, leave out from the first word "the" to the word "proceed" in line 36, and insert instead thereof the words:
appropriate provisions hereafter in this Act contained.

In line 37, leave out the word "thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "of the area."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Clearance orders.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 17, leave out the words "such longer time," and insert instead thereof the words:
in either case, before the expiration of such longer period."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Treatment of clearance area.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
so soon as may be, cause every building thereon to be vacated and.
This Amendment and the Amendments which follow it on the Paper in reference to this Clause are consequential upon Amendments moved in the Committee and accepted by the Government. The proposed words are necessary in order to make the Clause run smoothly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 23, after the word "spaces," insert the word "shall."

In line 26, after the word "shall," insert the words "demolish every building thereon."

In line 27, leave out from the word "which" to the word "thereafter," in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words:
it is vacated, or before the expiration of such longer period as in the circumstances they deem reasonable, and,"—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 7.—(Local authority may declare unhealthy area to be improvement area.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 7, line 21, after the word "that," to insert the words "in so far as."
This Amendment, and the Amendment which follows it correspond with Amendments which we have recently passed, in that they are intended to make it perfectly clear that the local authority may seek the co-operation of public utility societies and housing trusts in the pro vision of these houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 24, leave out the words "exists or will be provided by the authority," and insert instead thereof the words:
does not already exist, the authority will provide, or secure the provision of, such accommodation."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Treatment of improvement area.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 7, leave out the word "thereupon," and insert instead thereof the word "thereon."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, after the word "land" to insert the words:
unless the authority are satisfied that the opening out of the area will be adequately carried out by the owner or owners of the land.
This is an Amendment of substance but of small substance. It was strongly urged in the Committee that owners of property themselves might wish to carry out development schemes, and this Amendment makes provision for cases in which the local authority is satisfied that the opening out of the area will be adequately carried out by the owner or owners. The Amendment is intended to meet a pledge which was given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) who, in Committee, moved an Amendment with a similar purpose, but providing that local owners might give notice of schemes of their own. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal in Committee was that if within one week after the publication of the notice, the owners intimate their intention to develop their land, the local authority might specify a time within which such scheme should be submitted. We think that the words proposed in this Amendment meet the case satisfactorily, and that, in substance, they achieve the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I very much appreciate the desire of the Minister to meet the point which I raised in Committee, but I do not feel quite satisfied that the Amendment now before us carries out the intentions which I and the supporters of my Amendment in Committee had in mind. This Amendment only applies to paragraph (ii) of Sub-section (1). That is to say the only thing that the local authority will refrain from
doing, if they are satisfied that the owners are prepared to open out the land, is purchasing the land for that purpose themselves. In the preceding paragraph it is stated that the local authorities are to serve notices requiring the execution of all necessary works or the demolition of houses, and what I was afraid of in Committee was that in cases where the owners themselves were willing to demolish the houses and carry out schemes of development, the local authority might proceed with these notices and with the demolition of houses, and subsequently with their own development or possibly with no development at all. I wish to ask the hon. Lady if she is satisfied that under her proposal the local authority will, at least, give a reasonable opportunity to the owners to say whether they intend to project any scheme for the-opening up of these areas. Can she say that there is any provision for allowing the necessary time to owners, at least to give notice of their intention to do so? Of course, owners cannot prepare schemes under a considerable period of time and what we are endeavouring to do is to see that they have the chance to give notice that they intend to prepare such schemes. I do not see anything to that effect in this Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: What is contemplated in paragraph (i) of this Subsection is that notices should be served upon owners in regard to demolition or repairs. What is contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, schemes of redevelopment by the owners themselves. But if the local authority does not wish to purchase the land then the whole business falls as far as they are concerned, and the land remains in the hands of the owners and they can carry out whatever scheme of development or demolition or whatever works may be necessary. The only obstacle to owners carrying out their own schemes of development would be if the local authority took the land away from them, and we conceived that we were meeting quite a substantial part of what the right hon. Gentleman desired by saying that the local authority should consider whether the development of the area will be adequately carried out by the owners of the land. I think there is no point at all in the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment because the
only case in which the local authority would interfere with the owners would be a case where they were purchasing the land themselves. I think we have substantially met his point.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Will they have reasonable time to consider it?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 31, after the word "six," insert the words "of the principal Act."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, in page 8, line 34, to leave out Sub-section (4).
This Amendment refers to the question of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts in respect of the particular improvement areas which we are now considering, and the point is not covered by the Clause which we considered earlier in relation to this matter. This Sub-section provides that where action is taken by a local authority under this Clause, which results in a tenant being removed, the Rent Restrictions Acts if applicable to that house, shall not cease to apply, by reason only of the fact that the landlord comes into possession of the house. One of the features of the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923 was that when the existing tenant vacated a house the landlord came into possession, and that was a step in the direction of freeing the property from the restrictions of the Act. We cannot go into the whole question of rent restrictions here, but everybody concerned with housing knows that it is a very bad thing to have exceptions made in regard to one particular case. It was open to question whether it was advisable for houses to be released at all from these restrictions, pending the entire removal of the Part I Restrictions of the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923, but it was agreed by Parliament that it was necessary to bring about a gradual freeing of houses from these restrictions where it could reasonably be done, and it was laid down clearly that, when a new tenant came into a house, he did so with the knowledge that whatever rent was being imposed upon him he must take it or leave it.
On the whole, that provision has had this effect—that where one house belonging to a landlord is freed from restrictions in this way, while the other houses round about remain under restrictions, taking it in a broad sense and, in general, the landlord cannot go in for excessive profiteering in any one particular case. In this instance, however, it might be very inconvenient and deleterious to the improvement area if the Rent Restrictions Acts were to continue to apply despite the new treatment of the area proposed in this Measure. The development of the area might be held up. Some of the most improved buildings in the area which are essential for the proper treatment of the area might be affected. I do not wish to go into the matter more closely. I think we all recognise that the rent restriction was necessary, and is still necessary, but we must also recognise that in this case the application of these Acts may hold up development, and what we are trying to do here is to secure the development and improvement of areas. I think the retention of Sub-section (4) would interfere seriously with that purpose.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not press this Amendment. Let us contemplate the state of affairs that will arise. A local authority desires in the case of an improvement area to move families from one house to another. The desire is to put nine persons into a new large house and move into the vacated house a family of four persons. There is a general shifting of tenants in the area. That would be made impossible if the process of shuffling involved decontrolling the house, since the landlord would have an opportunity, on the removal of the tenant, of resuming possession of the house. It is desired, therefore, to exclude the operation of Section 2 of the Rent Restrictions Act of 1923 in these cases. Take another case of two families in a house which holds one and you desire to move one of these families into new premises. If you move out the sub-tenant nothing happens in regard to the Rent Restrictions Acts, but if the family which moves out is that of the head tenant, the house is decontrolled and a thousand complications might
arise which would prevent the moving on of persons from house to house. This question was very fully discussed in Committee and I hope that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will not the case which the hon. Lady gave work the other way round? If the Rent Restrictions Acts still hold good, the instance which she has given seems to work the other way round. The head tenant may refuse to move and the local authorities may not be able to move on the persons they want to move.

Miss LAWRENCE: I contemplate that by-laws will be made to prevent overcrowding and if there is alternative accommodation the local authorities will be able to move them out. The local authority would be unable to carry out their plans if the Amendment were accepted.

Sir T. WALTERS: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. The hon. Lady stated the case perfectly fairly, and I cannot understand why there should be any apprehension about the Rent Restrictions Act. Those Acts are not scientific Acts based upon principles that need to be abolished or amended at one stroke. They are only possible if constant exemptions are made to them, and the provisions of this Bill with regard to them are essential to deal with the questions arising from rehousing in these insanitary areas. My hon. and gallant Friend, who is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of housing, has misunderstood the effect of this Clause, or he could not have moved the Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member press his Amendment?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I do not want to press it, but I still maintain that the effect is as I have suggested.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Member withdraw the Amendment?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Yes, by the leave of the House, I will withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 9.—(Obligations of local authority with respect to rehousing.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, after the word "out," to insert the words "or to secure the carrying out of."
This is a small Amendment which is consequential on the alteration we made with regard to public utility societies.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Provisions as to purchase of land.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 15, leave out the words "for the purposes of," and insert instead thereof the word "under."

In page 9, line 32, at the end, insert the words:
(3) An order authorising the compulsory purchase of land which the authority have resolved to purchase as being land which has been cleared of buildings in accordance with a clearance order and has not been, or is not in process of being, used for building purposes, or otherwise developed, by the owner thereof, shall be submitted to the Minister within three months after the date of the passing of the resolution."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 11.—(Validity and date of operation of clearance orders and compulsory purchase orders.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 35, leave out the words "Part of this."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move, in page 10, line 9, to leave out the words "six weeks," and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty days."
This is an attempt to expedite matters. Everybody agrees that we want to get on with the work as quickly as possible, and 30 days seems ample warning for the purpose here.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: This and the four following Amendments have been put down at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations. There are two or three little points which should be considered in connection with them—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On a point of Order. Ought we not to discuss this first Amendment by itself? It seems inconvenient to discuss all of them together.

Mr. SPEAKER: They really all hang together.

Miss LAWRENCE: They are all connected, but perhaps it would be better to discuss this Amendment first. It is moved at the instance of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the Government consider it a reasonable Amendment.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I should like the House to consider this point before assenting to the Amendment. The thing which is to be done within six weeks or 30 days, as the case may be, is the making of a motion to the High Court by any person who is aggrieved by an order, and desires to question its validity on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Bill, or because some requirement of this Bill has not been complied with. Unless he makes this Motion within the time stated, he is for ever shut out from complaining on either of these two grounds. As his only means of informing himself is by a notice published in a paper circulated in the district, six weeks is not too long to allow a man to inform himself of what has happened. In the case in which a man's attention may not be called within a month to the fact that this order has been made, he will be for ever shut out. We ought not to make this time too short, and the proposed alterations should not be accepted.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: We discussed this matter carefully upstairs, and I was under the impression that the Minister was satisfied that six weeks was a proper period. It is true that these Amendments have been sent in by the Association of Municipal Corporations. They were sent to me, and when I considered them and saw the difficulty of the person who would have to give notice, I found that I could not support them. Take the case where there is more than one owner of property to deal with; somebody would be put in a awkward position if we say that unless they put a claim in in 30 days they are ruled out. Ample time should be given to people who have valid objections to raise. I hope that the House will bear in mind that when an order is made, the person who owns the property, whether he be a small working man who has saved a little money and bought a small place, or a wealthy man who owns several places, will be deprived of his
property, and all he will be awarded under this Bill is mere site value, which in some cases will be only a few pounds. In view of the serious position that people will be placed in, the Minister was right in inserting six weeks in the Bill, and we shall make a mistake if we alter it, even at the behest of the Association of Municipal Corporations. They regard it from the point of view of the local authorities in their work of administering the Bill, and they want to make it as easy as possible for themselves. I do not blame them for that, but we have to have consideration for both sides. I am sorry that the Minister is going to accept it. I would rather it had been left to a free vote of the House, for it is not a question of party politics, but of common sense and reason.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that the Minister will reconsider this point, and not put the House to the trouble of a Division. It is a small point; the only difference between the two proposals is 10 days, and nobody can maintain that serious obstruction will arise because another 10 days is given to a man to make up his mind whether the action that has been taken is within the powers of this Act or whether any requirements of this Act have not been complied with. Surely the Minister does not want to make this change simply because the Association of Municipal Corporations have put this Amendment forward, when no real ground has been shown why he should change his mind from the original draft of the Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The only point in the minds of the Association of Municipal Corporations is the possibility of delay. It is true that the question of validity may raise awkward points, but I should have thought that 30 days was a reasonable period—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Why did the right hon. Gentleman say six weeks in the original Bill?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I erred on the side of generosity. This is not a point of any great substance, and I shall be prepared, if the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, to consider whether it is necessary to Shorten the period at all with a view to an Amendment being moved, if necessary, in another place.

Mr. HARRIS: It is purely a question of expediency, and, if the Minister will go into the matter carefully, to consider whether a shorter period is necessary, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 13.—(Extinguishment of ways, easements, etc.)

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 11, line 15, to leave out the words "two months," and to insert instead thereof the words "six weeks."
7.0 p.m.
This is in response to the request of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who thought that the period of two months for objections to orders extinguishing rights of way might cause delay. After consideration, I have come to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, six weeks is a sufficiently long period.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Application to London.)

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 13, line 6, to leave out the words "carry out those steps, and," and to insert instead thereof, the words:
subject as aforesaid, take those steps and shall.
This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 13, line 24, leave out the words "every council of a," and insert instead thereof the words "the council of every."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Power of local authority to require repair of insanitary house.)

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 15, line 13, after the word "representation," to insert the words:
or a report from any of their officers.
This is a matter which was discussed on an earlier stage of the Bill, and I undertook in the course of the debate to see whether words could be put in which would meet the representations of certain hon. Members. This—and the consequential Amendment to Clause 19—is the attempt to meet the case put in Committee and the effect, of the two Amendments is to secure that action by
a local authority, under Clause 17 as regards repairs to houses, and under Clause 19, as regards demolitions, may be taken upon consideration of an official representation or a report from any of their officers or other information in their possession. The language here used is similar to that used in the principal Act of 1925 and does go some way to meeting the case put.

Sir P. PILDITCH: The Minister has met the point which some of us had in mind when we moved an Amendment in Committee and has gone as far as can be expected. I and my friends are therefore glad to accept the Amendment and the subsequent Amendment to which he has referred. We shall not therefore move the Amendment standing in our names later on the Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SIMON: I beg to move in page 15, line 17, to leave out from the word "habitation" to the word "they" in line 18.
This Amendment has been put down on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations and is really mainly a drafting Amendment, but it relieves a local authority of the responsibility of proving that the house can be rendered fit for human habitation. If one takes the Amendment and the two following ones together, it will be seen that it, is a perfectly simple Amendment which I understand the Minister is prepared to accept.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This and the two following Amendments hang together. They are, in effect, drafting Amendments, and I am glad to accept them.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The Minister says they are merely drafting Amendments, but they make a difference of emphasis, and a difference of procedure. As the Bill stands it says that the local authority, if they are satisfied that a dwelling house is capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation, shall do certain things. They have simply to see it is capable of being rendered fit. Under the Amendment, the Clause will provide that they shall do so unless they are satisfied that it is not capable of being
rendered so fit. They have to be satisfied that it cannot be rendered fit. That introduces a very definite delay. They have to be satisfied, first of all, that it is not capable of being rendered fit and that will be a hardship to the owner. Whereas, as it stands at present, they have to be quite certain that it is capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation before they serve the notice. At present, before they serve the notice, they have to be quite certain, first of all, that what they are doing is reasonable and that the expense they are putting on the owner is a reasonable one compared with the total value of the house, but, according to the Amendment, they are to be allowed to serve a notice unless they have definite evidence brought before them that it is unreasonable.
That makes all the difference in the world to the procedure, and I can imagine them going rather heedlessly to work. They can plough right through the rights of the owners of property and can make demands for action to be taken on property that is not worth spending so much money upon, and which will cost a great deal too much to put in order. Under the hon. Member's Amendment, they need only say that they are not satisfied it is unreasonable, and can then serve these notices right and left. Surely the proposal of the Bill is the right one which requires the local authority to be satisfied, first of all, that the dwelling house is capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered fit for human habitation. It is a protection to the rights of the owners against stupid interference. It is obviously not the same thing, and therefore the Minister's reason for accepting the Amendment does not hold good. I hope he will suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw this Amendment and say that he will look into the matter before he gives way somewhat heedlessly to this proposal, which is not a wise one.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in thinking that there is a substantial change in the meaning of the Clause. The point that disturbed the mind of the Association of Municipal Corporations was their fear that the Clause, as drafted, would necessitate detailed estimates being submitted
in every case where simple repairs are required, which was not the intention of the Bill. This is simply to carry out the object of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 18, after the word "shall," insert the words:
unless they are satisfied that it is not capable at reasonable expense of being rendered so fit.

In line 24, leave out the words "can be carried out at a reasonable expense and."—[Mr. Simon.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 15, line 38, after the word "any," insert the word "other."

This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Power of local authority to order demolition of insanitary house.)

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 17, line 34, after the word "representation," to insert the words:
or a report from their officers.
This is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 17, line 35, at the end, to insert the words:
occupied, or suitable for occupation, by persons of the working-classes.
When the present Clause 17, the original Clause 14, was first in Committee the point was taken that the words "a dwelling-house occupied by persons of the working class" would not cover a house temporarily unoccupied and to meet that point the words "or suitable for occupation" were inserted after the word "occupied." It was intended to make a similar Amendment in Clause 16, but, owing to an oversight, the Amendment was not moved in Committee, and an Amendment was moved by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and accepted to delete from the Clause the words "occupied by persons of the working class." At the time, I expressed a doubt whether the word "dwelling-house," even without the qualifying words would not be governed by the terms of the long title of the Bill, and I said that I would look into the matter. The Amendment was
moved to cover the empty house, and the object of this Amendment is to have that effect. It is quite clear that the wording of the new Clause 17 and of the new Clause 19 should be identical in this respect, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The only question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is Whether he is satisfied that the wording of this Clause, as amended, really carries out his intention. The Clause will read:
any dwelling-house occupied or suitable for occupation by persons of the working-classes is unfit for human habitation.
If it is unfit for human habitation it is not suitable for occupation for the working classes, and the two phrases coming one after the other seem to me to be rather strange. I suggest that he might usefully look at the wording of his Amendment again.

Mr. P. OLIVER: Before we finally leave this Amendment I hope we shall be offered some further explanation, because although I understand the Minister proposed it simply in order to secure symmetry between Clauses 17 and 19 it seems to me we are making a very radical alteration in the Bill. This legislation proceeds in two streams, one dealing with the provision of houses and another dealing with insanitary property. When we are dealing with the provision of houses we find in Act after Act the phrase, 'suitable for the working classes," but when we are dealing with insanitary property this Amendment, if it be accepted, will be the first one limiting demolition orders to houses which are "suitable for occupation by the working classes." In Schedule 5 we are repealing Sections 11 and 15 of the principal Act of 1925. Those Sections deal with closing and demolition orders, and under them local authorities have the power of demolishing any dwelling house which is unfit for human habitation, no matter to what class or section of houses it belongs, whether it is what is rather offensively called a working-class dwelling or not. If the house is insanitary there is power to demolish it; but that is a Section that we are repealing. In the Act of 1890, when we are dealing with insanitary property, there is no distinc-
tion between one class of house and another.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member looks at the title of the principal Act he will see that it is
An Act to consolidate the enactments relating to the Housing of the Working Classes in England and Wales.
That title governs the word "house" in that Act.

Mr. OLIVER: With great respect I very much doubt that. Certainly this Bill is not concerned only with the improvement of unhealthy areas or the demolition of insanitary houses suitable only for the working classes. The title of the Bill only specifically mentions the working classes when it comes to "the housing of the working classes." Taking this legislation as a chapter by itself, and starting from about 1860, we shall find that the working classes are only mentioned where we are providing houses; wherever we are dealing with insanitary property and with demolition and closing orders the law applies to all property, whether suitable for the working classes or not. That has been the position all along, and therefore this Amendment seems to make a very radical change in the law. If we pass it we are definitely taking away certain powers which local authorities already possess, and I hope that the Minister will give the matter further consideration.

Captain GUNSTON: Surely the Minister does not want a local authority to be put in the position where they cannot demolish an insanitary house because the people living in it are not of the working class; and I suggest that he might reconsider this matter. The interpretation of the Clause by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. P. Oliver) has put a different aspect on the question.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member is quite wrong in his interpretation. We are not dealing here with individual houses. In reference to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) the term "suitable for occupation" appears to be capable of many different meanings. What I would propose is that the House should pass the Amendment in its present form, and if we find that "suitable for occupation" is not the right term and does not fit in with the use
of the term, "unfit for human habitation" we will have some such words as the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind inserted in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 16, leave out from the word "if," to the word "the," and insert instead thereof the words:
in a case where they have accepted such an undertaking, any work to which the undertaking relates is not carried out within the specified period, or the house is at any time used in contravention of the terms of the undertaking."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 18, line 17, to leave out from the word "make," to the word "a" in line 19.
This Amendment and the one immediately following it are designed to make it clear that if an undertaking is broken a local authority must serve a notice not necessarily on the persons on whom it was originally served under Sub-section (1) of the Clause, because the house may have changed hands, but on the persons who at the time are the owners or mortgagees.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 26, at the end, insert the words:
and shall serve the order upon every person upon whom they would be required by Sub-section (1) of this section to serve a notice issued by them under that sub-section."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Procedure where demolition order or closing order made or undertaking given as to user of house.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 15, leave out the word "expense," and insert instead thereof the word "expenses."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

CLAUSE 22.—(Appeals.)

Mr. EDE: I beg to move, in page 20, line 7, to leave out the words from the second word "the," in line 7, to the word "and," in line 9, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Minister against the notice, demolition order, clasing order, or refusal to determine a closing order, and may appeal against the demand for the recovery of expenses, or an order made by ft local authority with respect to any such expenses.
I very much regret that the hon. Member for South Battersea (Mr. W. Bennett), whose name appears first to this Amendment, is, unfortunately, in hospital and unable to be here to move it. In order to make the Amendment run with the Bill it has been necessary to move it in a somewhat different form from that in which it appeared on the paper by leaving out these words from the Clause:
the county court within the jurisdiction of which the premises to which the notice, demand, or order relates are situate.
The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee have asked for this Amendment to be made. They suggest that no sufficient reason has been given for the very drastic amendment of the law proposed in this case. Prior to 1909 such appeals as this could be heard by petty sessions or by quarter sessions. In 1909 this House tranferred the appeal to the Minister. The jurisidiction of the Minister has been efficiently exercised; it has been a cheap method, and has avoided a very considerable amount of delay. It is highly desirable that these appeals shall be heard by a tribunal which is easily accessible and does not involve a great outlay. The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee feel that if the alteration proposed by the Bill is made it will involve a serious congestion of work in the county courts. It is not suggested that the county courts are well qualified to deal with this particular form of appeal, and I hope the Minister will be able to say that the existing practice, which has lasted for over 20 years, and has given general satisfaction, may continue.

Mr. MOSES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: I found it a little difficult to follow the altered Amendment which was presented to us in verbal form, but, as far as I gathered it, the purpose of the mover is to restore the law to its present state in which such appeals lie to the Minister. We suggest that these appeals should go to the county courts. The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee speak for boroughs that live, as it were, on the steps of Whitehall, and they do not feel that the present procedure involves any difficulty for them; but if some small business has to be undertaken in, say, Cumberland, the
Minister has to send down an inspector and has to hold an inquiry, and that entails some delay. The courts are well distributed throughout the country and every authority will find a county court within a reasonable distance. It, may be said that the Ministry will know more about housing law than the courts do and, as far as technical matters are concerned, I think we may say that the Ministry would be the better judge; but these appeals will be with regard to details of the execution of work, expenses and matters of that class. In weighing the points up carefully the enormous advantage to the local authorities of having an appeal to courts so easily accessible to them turned the balance in favour of the proposal in the Bill. The local authorities which object are those which do not suffer owing to their nearness to London. I hope the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. EDE: In view of the explanation of the hon. Lady I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 21, line 14, leave out the first word "the."

In line 30, leave out the word "section," and insert instead thereof the words "Part of this Act."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Local authorities for the purposes of this part of this Act.)

Amendment made: In page 22, line 38, leave out the words "metropolitan borough council" and insert instead thereof the words, "council of the metropolitan borough."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 25.—(Duty of local authorities to review housing conditions in their areas and to frame proposals.)

Amendment made: Leave out Subsection (3).—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Special Conditions.)

Dr. DAVIES: I beg to move, in page 26, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) that the rents applicable to the houses shall be the same as those charged for similar houses provided by the local authority or, if there are no similar houses, then as may be in proportion to those charged for other houses in the neighbourhood, having regard to size, materials, and
amenities, but such rents shall be subject to rebates in the case of individual tenants, as hereinafter provided;
(d) that rebates from the rents of the houses may be granted to individual tenants in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the local authority may think fit, provided that the total amount of such rebates does not exceed in any one year the total amount of the rent pool formed as hereinafter enacted;
(e) that there shall be paid by the local authority in each year into a rent pool a sum equal to the difference between the rents applicable to the houses, in accordance with this sub-section, and.
This Amendment is divided into three parts. The first part deals with rents applicable to the houses built by the local authorities, and let at a standard rent. The second part gives an opportunity to the local authorities to give rebates on rents for certain specified conditions. The third part forms a pool by the local authority out of which the rebates can be paid. Clause 27 deals with the special conditions which the local authority may carry out in dealing with the rents to be charged. Among the conditions we find, in Sub-section (1, c), these words:
…. the authority may charge in respect of any house such rent as they may think fit, and may grant to the tenant of any house such rebates from rent, subject to such terms and conditions as they may think fit ….
This Amendment was moved in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), who was very anxious that the wishes of the Minister in regard to this Bill should be carried out to the full. He had an idea, as we all had, that the explanation given in the Bill was rather complicated and difficult to understand. Even at the present time it is not quite easy to grasp from the Bill the intentions of the Minister. So far as we understand them, and I think we are right, they simply mean that if in the clearing of a slum 100 people are removed, it is incumbent upon the local authority to build new housing accommodation for 100 people, but it does not of necessity follow that the 100 people removed from the slum will be the 100 people who will get into the new property. A process of decanting will proceed, and although it is possible that some people from the slum may on account of certain special conditions get into the new estate, the probability will be that the large majority of the slum people will not. My right hon.
Friend thought that the first essential was to see that the houses built upon the new estate as a result of the slum clearance were of an equal rent to the rents of houses in the vicinity built by the local authority, or, as the Amendment says:
if there are no similar houses, then as may be in proportion to those charged for other houses in the neighbourhood, having regard to size, materials, and amenities, but such rents shall be subject to rebates in the case of individual tenants.
Having formed a standard rent for the new estate, you proceed to move into the estate the people who have been removed from the cleared area. It is possible that from one particular district you may remove a man who is earning £6 or £7 a week, who had to get into an inferior house because he could not get a proper house elsewhere. The house that he may be in may be a suitable house for a person removed from the slum. Therefore this well-to-do artisan can be allowed to take one of the new houses at an economic rent, such as the rent that has been charged for a Wheatley or Chamberlain house in the district or for a house of an equal amenity value. You might find that another man from a slum will have a wife and seven children, and there will be no suitable house between that house and the estate. That family would of necessity be removed into a new estate house, but the man could not afford to pay the rent. In that case we bring in the second part of our Amendment, which allows the local authority to grant a rebate of rent. These rebates can be granted
in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the local authority may think fit.
By our Amendment we give the local authority an absolutely free hand to decide how these rebates shall be fixed. They may give a rebate on account of the size of the family, a rebate of so much per child. They may give a rebate on account of the poverty of the family, or for any other reason which they think justifiable. The whole matter is left to the sole discretion of the local authority as a means of equalising the rent, and it would allow the people who come from the slums to be housed at a rent which they can afford. There is one definite proviso in the Amendment:
there shall be paid by the local authority in each year into a rent pool a sum equal to the difference between the rents applicable to the houses, in accordance with this sub-section,
The definite condition is, that a rent pool must be formed, and out of that rent pool any rebates which are given must be used for the reduction of the rent in cases of necessity. It may happen that in one district you may have a class of families in the estate houses to whom the rent rebate would be a very small matter. In that case, you would accumulate a sum of money which could be carried over to the following year, and in the following year, or it may be one or two years afterwards, you might have a different class of tenant to whom the rebate would be an absolute necessity, either on account of poverty or in regard to the size of the family. Then by using the rent pool you would be able to give these people a rebate sufficient to ensure that they would get these houses at a rent which they could afford to pay. The rent would be an economic rent, taking the whole scheme together.
On the assumption that my explanation is correct, and I imagine that it is, we think that that would be the best way to deal with this rather complicated subject. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. E. D. Simon) and the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) wish to move an Amendment to our proposed Amendment, which specifies a little more definitely or distinctly how some of these rebates might be used. I shall be very pleased to accept that Amendment when it is moved. We think that our Amendment carries out the idea of the Minister in a way more easy to understand than the way outlined in the Bill, and it ensures that the whole of the benefit will get to the people who require it. If I carry the House with me—[Interruptian.] I am sorry to hear that interruption, because this is a serious attempt on our part to do what we can to help these people who cannot afford an economic rent, in order that they can get into decent houses, by giving them a rent rebate. It is proposed by the Government in their Clause, but in a very complicated manner, and in a way much more difficult to carry out and to estimate than is the case in our Amend-
ment.When an hon. Member opposite makes an interjection which is derogatory, to say the least of it, it shows that my arguments are not being appreciated by the other side.
I would like hon. Members opposite to understand that we are not moving this Amendment in A party spirit. We are simply moving it in a sincere desire that these poor people who are removed from the slums shall get decent suitable accommodation at a rent which they can afford. I commend the Amendment to the House on that ground alone. I hope that hon. Members opposite will forget for the moment that this Amendment has been moved from the Tory benches. Hon. Members on the Tory benches are just as interested in slum clearance as are hon. Members opposite. We have had a certain amount of experience. This Amendment was originally moved in Committee by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston, a man of vast experience. Therefore, hon. Members opposite may take it for granted that this is a serious effort to help the Government, and to see that the provisions which they require to be carried out are carried out. It is moved with the sincere desire that the poor people shall have the very best done for them that can be done under this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) if he will join with me in asking you, Mr. Speaker, to allow us to correct a misprint in the Amendment as it stands on the Order Paper. The Amendment reads: "In line 16, at the end, insert." It should read "leave out from the end of line 16 to the end of line 24, and insert." The proposal in the Amendment is an alternative to that now in the Bill. That was the way in which it was moved in Committee. May we move it in that way now?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the Amendment that has been moved was not the right one or moved in the right place, I do not understand the difference.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The difference is that it really involves leaving out eight lines, and substituting an
alternative to those eight lines. It is not simply an insertion.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I point out that the last word of the Amendment is the word "and." That was intended to be followed by the words which begin on line 25 of the Bill. That is the reason why my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to move to leave out the lines that precede line 25, namely, lines 17 to 24 inclusive, otherwise the Amendment would not read.

Mr. SPEAKER: He may do that.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The proposal in our Amendment is not merely an alternative to the one in the Bill, but it gives definite precision to the proposal. It is useful for the local authority to have a definite proposal worked out. The answer that was given in Committee was that it is not necessary to confine the local authority to this method of a rent pool, and that the Minister wished to leave it open to the local authority to adopt what means they wished, recognising at the same time that the rent pool as proposed in this Amendment is the best way of working the scheme laid down in the Bill. There really is no other way of working it properly, and it would be a very definite improvement and a help in the interpretation of the Bill. The reasons for it have been so well set out in the speech proposed in the Amendment, that I do not wish to do more than second it.

Miss RATHBONE: I would like to move my Amendment to the proposed Amendment, namely, in line 6, after the word "tenants" to insert the words
who, on account of dependent children or of their poverty cannot reasonably be expected to pay the full rent.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot move that yet. We have first to get the words out of the Clause. The proper place for her to do so will be on the Question, "That those words be there inserted."

Miss RATHBONE: The Amendment I am moving does not involve leaving out any words.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment must be moved on the Question "That those words be there inserted."

Miss LAWRENCE: I am sorry to say that I must ask the House to reject this Amendment. Remember what it is that we are doing. We are giving the local authorities additional power by which they can reduce rent. We have had long discussions with the local authorities on this matter, and the discussions have proceeded on the lines that local authorities, while they must use the whole of the additional money for the reduction of rent, will make such reductions as they think right and proper having regard to the circumstances of their tenants. We say that the total rent they charge on their new estates must not exceed certain limits. Within those limits they may make such rebates as they think proper by the fixing of such rents as they think proper. The Amendment on the Paper is a very elaborate way of doing this very thing. The local authorities are to fix standard rents and make rebates. They are to suit the rents to the tenants. That is what most authorities and certainly all small authorities will do. When you come to the very large authorities, such as the London County Council, they will not want to suit the rents to their tenants, but to suit the tenants to the rents. They find it a much more convenient way. Sometimes they erect a block of especially cheap flats or of cheap houses, and from their waiting list they select their tenants whose economic circumstances demand a cheaper house. This may seem a little point, but it is not. If you are building on a big enough scale to say: "This block shall be cheap houses" and to send people who want a cheap house to them, you get certain advantages in administration. You know what the rents will be week by week and year by year, and you get the same kind of tenants living next door to each other. For the smaller authorities, such a plan is clearly impracticable. The London County Council is actually doing this kind of thing now in regard to its slum clearance schemes. It keeps things on a different rank altogether from its Wheatley houses and tries to keep them specially cheap.
There is a very great number of circumstances which a local authority may have to take into account in considering the needs of individual tenants. The
Amendment which is down on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) proposes that local authorities shall in all cases make rebates on particular grounds. It would exclude all other grounds for making them. It is very likely that the local authority will take into account the number of children. Almost certainly they will take into account a variety of circumstances, so great that the local authorities, generally, are determined to have a reasonably free hand in suiting each case to its particular circumstances. Nothing in the world can be more different in the character of the problems of administration than between such housing authorities as Manchester, Birmingham and London. You would hamper these authorities and spoil the Bill if you tried to get down too closely to the minutia: of administration. The local authorities wish to have reasonable freedom in distributing the extra money among their different classes of tenants.

Dr. DAVIES: They have under this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I very much regret that the Parliamentary Secretary has maintained a rigid attitude upon the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. We had a longish discussion on this subject in Committee, and the Minister did go some way to meet us by amending the Clause as it originally stood in the Bill. As my hon. Friend pointed out at the time, however, this did not really go to the root of our objection, and I think the discussion has confirmed in every respect the criticism that we made on the Second Reading of the Bill, upon the system of attaching the subsidy to the person and not to the house. Look at the absurd position to which we are getting by this arrangement! Under paragraph (c), which we are discussing here, the rent is to be determined by the amount of subsidy, which is a subsidy per person and yet the persons are not the persons who are going to be in the house. Could anything be more absurd than that? The persons, in fact, in respect of whom the subsidy is going to be paid, are, it is contemplated, to go into other houses to which the subsidy cannot be made applicable. This Amendment of my hon. Friend is an endeavour to make the Bill work, as we believe the Minister really in his heart desires it to work.
The only argument that is put up against this is that certain local authorities do not like it, and that the local authorities ought to be allowed to have every possible freedom in deciding how they are to fix their rents. I am certainly au advocate of giving wide powers to local authorities, but I consider that when the State is going to step in and give a subsidy to local authorities, the State has a right to say how its bounty shall be used. You need not tie them down to every detail. When one considers what is the nominal purpose of this subsidy, I think we ought to see, in framing our Bill, that we are actually going to achieve our purpose. The hon. Lady said that paragraph (c) would carry out exactly what we propose in our Amendment, but this paragraph is giving latitude to local authorities to use the subsidy in quite a different way. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a local authority taking the money which is to be received from the State in respect of slum clearance, a subsidy per person, and using it to reduce the rents of all the houses in the new building scheme by a flat rate. That is much the simplest and easiest way for the local authority. It has not got to take any trouble about whether a tenant fits the house or a house fits the tenant. Here is the house and here is the subsidy, which allows you to reduce the rent by so much, and it in attached to the house. There is nothing to prevent a local authority from making a flat rate deduction from the rents of these houses. It means that the benefit of the deduction will go to a number of tenants who really ought not to get it, who are not in such circumstances as will justify their having it. It means something more. If you divide the amount of subsidy over the number of houses, the average rate of deduction on flat rate is going to be very small. You are not going to have any sort of elasticity in dealing with these tenants whose circumstances are very difficult. The local authority will have no means of giving a larger subsidy where one is required, such as you could do under the Amendment which my hon. Friend proposed.
The Amendment which the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) desires to make is one which, I am sure, my hon. Friend is ready to
accept, as I was ready to accept it in Committee. I do not agree with the hon. Lady opposite who says that there might be all sorts of other circumstances which would justify a rebate in subsidy besides those which are put in the Amendment. The latitude which the Minister of Health is leaving to the local authorities will probably be used by many smaller local authorities to distribute the subsidy in a way by means of a flat rate, and if they do that the Minister will find that it will really defeat the purpose of the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is a restrictive Amendment which requires local authorities to deal with their property in one way and one way only. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has argued that you might get a reduction of rent in certain areas. I have no objection whatever to that. I can imagine the London County Council dealing with a large number of tenants and setting aside houses for people in a comfortable economic position, and there is no reason why that should not be done. I do not think that we ought to say to the local authority, "This is the way in which you should act and no other." I wish the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) had used the same arguments in 1023 that he has used to-day. While it may be right to lay down how the money ought to be used, there comes a point when the matter ought to be left to the discretion of the local authorities. I do not pretend that all local authorities are equally enlightened, but in this matter of housing we have handed over to them heavy responsibilities and we must trust them. On the other hand, to pin them down to one particular way of fixing rents is not a method which we are entitled to impose upon local authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston said that this was a matter of poverty. Nearly all these questions are matters of poverty in a sense. One case may be that of a working man earning what in ordinary circumstances would be regarded as a reasonable wage, but circumstances may arise under which he cannot maintain the standard of living which he would other-wise
wise have followed. In those circumstances is the local authority going to be allowed to say that, because the income is so much, this man's case will be ruled out? We have laid down that certain sums will be handed over for the relief of the tenants, and we are leaving it to the local authorities to decide the manner in which it shall be done. I see no reason why we should compel all local authorities to adopt a precise method without any latitude at all. There is all the difference in the world between excessive latitude and no latitude at all. This Amendment gives the local authority no latitude. We cannot approach local authorities in these days after their enormous experience and lay down in detail the precise method by which they have to deal with the problem of rent.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Paragraph (d) of the Amendment lays down that rebates may be granted to individual tenants "on such terms and conditions as the local authority may think fit."

Mr. GREENWOOD: The whole purpose of this Amendment is to get away from the wording of the Bill, and under the Bill the latitude of which I have spoken is given to the local authority. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit that latitude, and it determines the precise manner by which they must settle the rents for the houses under this scheme. Having given to local authorities very considerable powers, I think we ought to be satisfied to leave to them a reasonable amount of discretion, and allow them to adjust their rents to the needs of their own citizens. For these reasons, I hope the House will reject this Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) was told that she could move her Amendment on the Question being put, "That those words be there inserted." Owing to the way the Amendment has been put, the hon. Lady will not have an opportunity of moving her Amendment at all on that Question, but in order to allow the Amendment to be moved I will put the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'the,' in line 19, stand part of the Bill," and that will allow the hon. Lady to move her Amendment.

Miss RATHBONE: If I move my Amendment, shall I be in order in speaking on the Amendment that has just been moved? My Amendment is a small one, and I wish to speak briefly upon it. I would also like to speak upon the main Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Lady seems to wish to have it both ways. The Question I am putting is, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'the,' in line 19, stand part," and that will enable the hon. Lady to speak to the Amendment now before the House.

Miss RATHBONE: The object of my Amendment is a simple one. It is to bring out the main object of the rebates which are alike referred to in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), and in the Clause as it now stands in the Bill. I move this Amendment on the ground that the Clause should apply to any individual tenant on account of his dependent children or of his poverty. Surely poverty and dependent children cover the whole of the ground. In the case cited by the Parliamentary Secretary of a man living at a long distance from his work, surely that fact can be taken into account by the local authority in considering whether he was to be considered so poor as to require a rebate upon his rent. The idea of putting those words in the Clause, instead of leaving them to be understood, is that the whole conception of a rebate for rents is comparatively new, and I believe the insertion of these words would relieve the minds of the local authority and assist them to understand what is the real intention of this Measure. When the Parliamentary Secretary was speaking on the Second Reading of this Measure and explaining Clause 23, she said that she thought local authorities would be able to grant rebates in respect of dependent children. I think she is assuming too much if she assumes that that object is clear from the wording of the Clause in the original Bill, or as it is now in Clause 26, where the word "rebate" has been inserted and there is no kind of recommendation as to the reason for the rebate.
Having said so much about the reason for inserting these particular words, may I say a little more about the reason for the whole Amendment? I submit that
this is really one of the most important Amendments which has been moved on this Bill. I have studied this Measure as closely as any hon. Member of the House, and I believe that the future success or failure of this Bill will be considerably influenced by the acceptance or rejection of these words. What is after all the whole object of this Bill? Its object is to secure lower rents nearer the capacity of the tenants to pay than the rents which are now charged under the Wheatley Act. The important consideration is whether what I may call the Greenwood Act is going to give better terms than the Wheatley Act. I know that depends upon the amount of the grant. What has misled the House is that the Wheatley grant is attached to the house and the Greenwood grant is attached to the unit displaced, and it is exceedingly difficult for Members of the House to see what is the difference and to what extent the Greenwood grant exceeds the Wheatley grant. We know that if you take the Exchequer contribution and add the rent contribution under the Wheatley Act it amounts to about 3s. 9d. per week. That is the amount of reduction of the economic rent under the Wheatley Act.
What is going to be the reduction under the Greenwood Act 4 On the Second Heading of this Bill we were told that if the money available under this Act was concentrated on only half the persons displaced it would amount to a reduction of about 2s. on the normal weekly rents. Is that contribution going to make a very great difference in getting poor workers out of the slums into new houses? I suggest that it is not going to make any difference at all. What guarantee have we that the local authorities will concentrate the benefit of the unit upon half the tenants? The Parliamentary Secretary was so determined to leave everything to the local authorities that she threw the reins on the back of the horse and allowed it to gallop wherever it liked. It is likely that the local authorities will follow the precedent of using the total amount of the grant for a reduction of rents, which will leave the average at about 1s. per house per week. In that Estimate I believe the Minister of Health was overestimating because if you work out how the Minister arrives at the sum of 2s.
per house it assumes that the average number per family was 4.5, and the Parliamentary Secretary has discovered from an analysis which she has made of the inhabitants of the slums that that is an over-estimate. I should not be surprised if we find that the average number of inhabitants per family in a slum is more than four persons. I know that in Liverpool, where a careful survey has been made. In the wards in which there is a large Catholic population the average number is something considerably less than 4.5.
The point of what I am saying, as bearing on this Amendment, is that at its very best we have to squeeze every drop of juice out of this desiccated summer orange of a Bill, and I do not think it is going to refresh to any great degree the parched throats of the dwellers in slums. The object of this Amendment is, I take it, to go further than any other Amendment which has been put down, and it will immeasurably improve the Bill by insisting that every drop of juice shall be squeezed out of it and shall be used for those who really need it. It insists that the money shall not be used in flat-rate reductions of rent—those flat-rate reductions that are so dear to the heart of every town clerk, every city treasurer, and every surveyor of corporation houses, because they are so beautifully simple to work out and collect. The object is that the money shall be used for the one purpose only of reducing rents for those individual tenants who need reductions, and who need them on the only ground on which they are likely to do so, namely, the ground either of child dependency or of poverty.
In future days, the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary may be somewhat sorry that they have not accepted this Amendment. It is dangerous to prophesy, but I will venture to make a prophecy. I believe that in two or three years' time it will be found that a very considerable proportion of the local authorities have used this Greenwood subsidy in just the way that the Ministry does not intend, and that none of us want who have really studied the matter closely, that is to say, simply in cutting down a little all the Wheatley rents. Some may not even do that, but may simply put a few extra embellishments
on to their houses. There is no provision in the Bill that compels them to apply the full value to the reduction of rents. On the other hand, if this Amendment were adopted, it would mean that, instead of having two sets of houses, perhaps side by side, one at Wheatley rents and the other at Wheatley rents minus 2s., we should have houses put up by the local authorities, whether under the Wheatley Act, the Chamberlain Act, or the Greenwood Act, at some reasonably worked out standard rent, and then, for the purpose of this particular Measure, we should be quite sure that all these rents were reduced by the method of rebates, so that the benefit would be entirely concentrated upon the greatest need. I suggest that hon. Members opposite are now unwise if they pour scorn on this Amendment, because they say that they fear gifts that come from the Greeks. If they want a classical quotation, I suggest that it would be more appropriate if they said to the Minister and to the Parliamentary Secretary:
Mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted.
I venture to think that they will find that this Measure will be a delusive Measure, a mirage, a will of the wisp; that it means holding out promises that are never really going to be fulfilled. It would make a very great difference if this Amendment were accepted, because it would be the beginning of a direct inducement to the local authorities to spend the money on the purpose upon which, after all, they are confessedly intended to spend it, and that is on the need of those tenants who require it.

Mr. SIMON: I support the appeal of the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) in favour of this Amendment, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to accept the Amendment. The very best thing in this Bill, the one new invention in the Bill which is going to help housing, is this invention of differential rents, that is to say, the basing of the rents, not, as in the Wheatley Act, on the house, but on the needs of the family. The whole value of this Amendment is that, although the Bill allows differential rents and allows the local authorities to have regard to the needs of the family, the
Amendment goes rather further, and almost makes it compulsory on local authorities to have for all their houses what may be called a standard rent, and then to concentrate the rent pool and give it to those who need it. I am convinced that this Amendment, while not quite compulsory, will have the effect, not so much in London or in Manchester, which the hon. Member was good enough to compliment, but in the more backward local authorities, of making them realise the real virtue of this Bill, namely, that it enables them to take the rather exiguous extra grant and use it in order to provide family houses at rents of 6s., 7s. and 8s., and not merely cut down the rent of the 10s. house to 9s., which, as the hon. Member said, would be almost useless. There has only been one argument against making differential rents almost compulsory in this way, and that is on the question of the freedom of the local authorities. I am a local authority man just as much as the right hon Gentleman, and, within limits, I agree that we should leave them all the freedom that we can. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman really means. I am sorry that he is not here—to use that argument, but I have here a document entitled "Public Assistance Order, 1930," issued by the right hon. Gentleman three or four months ago, in which I find 67 pages of instructions in the utmost detail to Manchester, London, and every other local authority as to exactly how they are to treat people admitted to their Poor Law Institutions—how discipline is to be administered, the exact meals that every child should get, and gems like the following:
That every casual shall be bathed as soon as practicable after his admission with clean warm water"—
otherwise I suppose the right hon. Gentleman thought that we might bathe him in cold, dirty water, or not bathe him at all—
unless there is reason to believe that bathing would be injurious to his health.
If you are going to give Manchester instructions of that sort—

Miss LAWRENCE: It is necessary.

Mr. SIMON: The hon. Lady has the courage to say that it is necessary. Here we have 67 pages of instructions as to how we are to treat our casuals. As one who was a member for 13 years of the
Manchester City Council I protest against this sort of treatment, and I am surprised that—

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member forgets the pledge that was given within three days of this Government coming into power that the whole of the conditions of the country would be changed.

Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of explanation. That story has grown like a green bay tree, and now it is said that we said that everything would be changed within three days. It is an absurdity.

Sir K. WOOD: May I say, as a point of explanation, in case I should be misunderstood, that I made no reference to any person? If anyone likes to put the cap on their head, they can, of course, do so.

Mr. SIMON: If I may come back to the question on which I was speaking, I suggest that, talking of absurdity, it is really absurd to say that this Amendment would limit the freedom of these local authorities when we have 67 pages telling us in absolute detail everything that our Poor Law authorities should do. It is really absurd to take diametrically opposed action like that. One can hardly believe, in view of that Order, which really is an outrage on the great county boroughs, that the Minister objects to this Amendment, which does not limit the freedom of local authorities, but rather gives them guidance. I do not think that that guidance will in the least affect the behaviour of cities like Manchester, Birmingham and so on, but we know to our regret that there are slack local authorities. In those cases where the same rent is charged for all houses, the maximum benefit is certainly not obtained, but people who do not need the grant will continue to get it, while those who want 6s. or 7s. houses will not be able to get them. This Amendment does nothing more than give guidance to the local authorities. The argument about liberty is really one that cannot be seriously pressed, and I once more appeal to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this Amendment favourably. I do not often support Conservative Amendments in this House, but I would ask the Government to realise that this Amendment is not in any sense a party Amendment, but one to make stronger and more effective the best
feature of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill, namely, that of differential rents. That is what the hon. Lady herself said she considered to be the right way of administering these provisions. The Amendment would give rather firmer guidance to the local authorities to administer them in that way; it would prevent waste of money, and would make available houses at low rents for those who need them, while it would do nothing to interfere with any reasonable liberty of the local authorities, and I still most sincerely hope that its acceptance will be considered.

Mr. McSHANE: The Minister has said we ought not to tie down the local authorities in one particular way and, in contradistinction to that, the last speaker has quoted -what the Minister said in connection with the transfer of Poor Law relief to the local authorities and, although that booklet to which he referred seemed on the face of it very outrageous, I can assure him that there is good, solid ground for the Minister having done that. The whole of that work was transferred to men and women most of whom knew nothing whatever of it. I speak from personal knowledge. Large numbers of the men and women who are now undertaking the work actually needed the whole of the instructions that the Minister gave. Coming to the Amendment itself, I do not think there is any doubt that every Member on these benches would in spirit support it, and if any of us thought that what the hon. Member and the hon. Lady for the combined Universities (Miss Rathbone) said was going to work out, that in fact local authorities would not give the rent rebates in the way indicated, I am certain very few on these benches would support the Minister in his proposal. But I feel a little doubt myself in relation to what may happen. One county borough that I have in mind whose name was notorious in 1926 for its mal-treatment of miners' wives and children in this respect, that they refused any relief of any kind. I certainly do not look with any happy feelings on that authority undertaking to work the Bill in the spirit the Minister suggested and I hope the hon. Lady will make it clear that, whatever happens under the operation of this Bill, reactionary authorities cannot use this merely to standardise rents without
giving the benefit to those for whom the Bill was originally introduced.

Captain GUNSTON: May I ask whether, before the Bill goes to another place, the Minister will have consultations with back-benchers, as they seem to realise that we are trying to get same useful Amendments.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Surely we are to have an answer to the very important question that has been put by the hon. Lady opposite and also to the hon. Member who has just sat down. We are entitled to have a direct answer whether the Minister will try to meet the wishes that have been expressed from many sides of the House on an Amendment which has had support from practically every quarter. The Minister could give a sort of answer which would help

very considerably in facilitating a Bill of this kind. I was rather astonished that the Minister refused any help at all in the matter.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'the,' in line 19, stand part of the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division.

Miss RATHBONE: On a point of Order. Where does my Amendment come in?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Lady heard Mr. Speaker's explanation, and if she has followed the way I am putting the Question, she will find that her Amendment is safeguarded.

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 120.

Division No. 420.]
AYES.
[8.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Egan, W. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Freeman, Peter
Lawrence, Susan


Arnott, John
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Ayles, Walter
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Leach, W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gillett, George M.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Barr, James
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Batey, Joseph
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Bellamy, Albert
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Longden, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, Thomas


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Benson, G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McElwee, A.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, V. L.


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
McKinlay, A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacLaren, Andrew


Broad, Francis Alfred
Harbord, A.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Bromfield, William
Hardie, George D.
March, S.


Brooke, W.
Harris, Percy A.
Marcus, M.


Brothers, M.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Markham, S. F.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marshall, Fred


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Haycock, A. W.
Mathers, George


Burgess, F. G.
Hayes, John Henry
Matters, L. W.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Messer, Fred


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Middleton, G.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Milner, Major J.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Montague, Frederick


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Herriotts, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Church, Major A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Mort, D. L.


Clarke, J. S.
Hopkin, Daniel
Moses, J. J. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Horrabin, J. F.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Isaacs, George
Naylor, T. E.


Compton, Joseph
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cove, William G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Daggar, George
Johnston, Thomas
Palin, John Henry


Dalton, Hugh
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Paling, Wilfrid


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Palmer, E. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Dickson, T.
Kennedy, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dukes, C.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Duncan, Charles
Kinley, J.
Pole, Major D. G.


Ede, James Chuter
Kirkwood, D.
Potts, John S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lang, Gordon
Price, M. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lathan, G.
Richards, R.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Watkins, F. C.


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Ritson, J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Romeril, H. G.
Snell, Harry
Wellock, Wilfred


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Rowson, Guy
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sorensen, R.
Westwood, Joseph


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sanders, W. S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Sawyer, G. F.
Sullivan, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Scrymgeour, E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sexton, James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Sherwood, G. H.
Tout, W. J.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Shield, George William
Townend, A. E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wise, E. F.


Shillaker, J. F.
Turner, B.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Shinwell, E.
Vaughan, D. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.



Sinkinson, George
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sitch, Charles H.
Walker, J.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. William


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wallace, H. W.
Whiteley.


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wallhead, Richard C.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Albery, Irving James
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Allen, W. E. D. (Balfast, W.)
Glassey, A. E.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Aske, Sir Robert
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Atholl, Duchess of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Beaumont, M. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Pybus, Percy John


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Ramsbotham, H.


Birkett, W. Norman
Hanbury, C.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Haslam, Henry C.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Butler, R. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Scott, James


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cowan, D. M.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Somerset, Thomas


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Todd Capt. A. J.


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lymington, Viscount
Train, J.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams, Charies (Devon, Torquay)


England, Colonel A.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Withers, Sir John James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fermoy, Lord
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Foot, Isaac,
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir




George Penny.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Miss Rathbone!

Miss RATHBONE: On a point of Order. I am sorry, but I am afraid that I do not understand the position. Do I now move the Amendment standing in my name, seeing that the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies) has been defeated?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker informed the hon. Lady that he was going to call the Amendment on the Order Paper, and the Amendment will now be—In page 26, line 19, to insert the words:
any individual tenant who on account of his dependent children or of his poverty cannot reasonably be expected to pay the full rent.

Miss RATHBONE: I did not understand. I thought that Mr. Speaker was referring to a manuscript Amendment, because he told me privately that he was going to select a manuscript Amendment and not the one on the Paper.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: For the information of the hon. Lady, I wish to draw attention to what we have already done. We have passed certain words down to the word "the" in line 19, and therefore the Amendment is to leave out the words "the tenant of any house," and insert the words upon the Order Paper.

Miss RATHBONE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 19, to leave out the words "the tenant of any house," and to insert instead thereof, the words:
any individual tenant who on account of his dependent children or of his poverty cannot reasonably be expected to pay the full rent.
The case for the Amendment is precisely the same as the case for inserting similar words in regard to the Amendment we have just discussed in the name of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies). I think that it is all the more important to insert the words in the Clause as it now stands, so as to draw the attention of the local authorities more fully to the reasons for which they are asked to grant rebates. They are now being given the choice between either a system of rebates or a fiat rate reduction of rent. It is clear that, owing to the unfamiliarity of the idea of rebates in the minds of local authorities, many of them will fasten on to the alternative now allowed them under the Clause of reducing rents by a flat rate all round, unless reasons for the rebates are suggested to their minds by the insertion of the words which I propose.

They make it clear that the idea is to concentrate the value of the subsidy on the tenants who need it for either of these two reasons—on account of child dependency or on the ground of poverty. I would remind the House that child dependency before the War was accountable for just three-fourths of the cases of primary poverty, but now unemployment is responsible for the largest number of cases. Still child dependency is the next greatest cause of primary poverty. Therefore, you have, in these two reasons—child dependency and poverty—conditions which really cover the whole ground.

Mr. SIMON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Lady opposite that, this Amendment, which will have much the same effect as the other Amendment, has not come from a tainted source, and I hope that they will accept it.

Miss LAWRENCE: Like the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) I do not wish to go over again the ground already discussed. I will only say this, that this Amendment appears to unduly restrict the liberty of local authorities. Some authorities, like the London County Council, may have nothing to do with rebates, and may also have a specially low rent for houses. There may be other causes besides mere poverty or children which may call for rebate. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 115.

Division No. 421.]
AYES.
[8.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bromfield, William
Compton, Joseph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Brooke, W.
Cove, William G.


Arnott, John
Brothers, M.
Daggar, George


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Dalton, Hugh


Ayles, Walter
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Burgess, F. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Dickson, T.


Barr, James
Cameron, A. G.
Dukes, C.


Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas
Duncan, Charles


Bellamy, Albert
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Ede, James Chuter


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Charleton, H. C.
Edmunds, J. E.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)
Chater, Daniel
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Benson, G.
Church, Major A. G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Clarke, J. S.
Egan, W. H.


Bowen, J. W.
Cluse, W. S.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Gibbins, Joseph
McElwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gillett, George M.
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.
Sinkinson, George


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
March, S.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marcus, M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mathers, George
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Middleton, G.
Snell, Harry


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sorensen, R.


Harbord, A.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mort, D. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Haycock, A. W.
Moses, J. J. H.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Murnin, Hugh
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Naylor, T. E.
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tout, W. J.


Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry
Turner, B.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Paling, Wilfrid
Vaughan, D. J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Palmer, E. T.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, Daniel
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walkden, A. G.


Horrabin, J. F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walker, J.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wallace, H. W.


Isaacs, George
Pole, Major D. G.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.
Watkins, F. C.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Richards, R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wellock, Wilfred


Kennedy, Thomas
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Kinley, J.
Ritson, J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Kirkwood, D.
Romeril, H. G.
Westwood, Joseph


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lathan, G.
Rowson, Guy
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, Dr, J. H. (Llanelly)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sawyer, G. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scrymgeour, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Leach, W.
Sexton, James
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Logan, David Gilbert
Sherwood, G. H.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lowth, Thomas
Shield, George William



Lunn, William
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shillaker, J. F.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Aske, Sir Robert
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foot, Isaac
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lymington, Viscount


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Birkett, W. Norman
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Glassey, A. E.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Butler, R. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Markham, S. F.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hanbury, C.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Colville, Major D. J.
Haslam, Henry C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cowan, D. M.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Muirhead, A. J.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Pybus, Percy John


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Eden, Captain Anthony
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ramsbotham, H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Rathbone, Eleanor


England, Colonel A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)




Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Withers, Sir John James


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Scott, James
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Todd, Capt. A. J.



Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Train, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
George Penny.


Somerset, Thomas
Warrender, Sir Victor



Question put, and agreed to.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 26, line 39, to leave out the first word "the."
Hon. Members will see on the Order Paper a very long list of Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. I want to say that they are all of a formal and drafting character and that no discourtesy to the House is involved if I move them formally without a speech, although I shall be delighted to give any explanation which may be necessary to the House.

Sir K. WOOD: That is a very reasonable suggestion, and if the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us when she comes to any Amendment which she thinks is other than a drafting Amendment or purely formal, I think that that will be sufficient.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This Amendment appears to be due entirely to gross carelessness in the drafting of the Bill. There can be no other reason for it. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite who interrupt have another reason to put forward, they are entitled to get up and state it. Without any explanation whatever we are asked by the Parliamentary Secretary to pass the Amendment. If Ministers had known their job all this work would have been done in Committee. Has the Amendment any bearing on the rest of the Bill? Where I find it necessary to put questions which were not answered during the Committee stage, I am sure that the Minister would wish me to put than and will be prepared to answer them.

Miss LAWRENCE: This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 28.—(Periodical revision of scale of contributions for purposes of subsequent rehousing schemes.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 28, line 15, to leave out from the
first word "in" in line 15, to the word "as" in line 16, and to insert instead thereof the words:
condition (c) of the special conditions set out in this Part of this Act and of the sum and period mentioned in Sub-section (2) of the next succeeding section.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This is clearly not a matter of mere wording and is of some importance. It refers to the periodical revision of the scale of contributions for the purposes of subsequent re-housing schemes. If the Amendment is the carrying out of some promise I am willing to accept it, but the Amendment is to leave out certain words and there is to be a complete change of words. I ask the Minister to say why it is necessary to make this considerable change in the Bill. I do not suppose that my party will divide on the Amendment, but we are entitled to a definite answer to our question.

Miss LAWRENCE: The first part of this Amendment is purely drafting.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Power of local authority to make arrangements for provision of houses by public utility societies etc.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I Leg to move, in page 28, line 27, after the word "may," to insert the words "with the approval of the Minister."
This Amendment and that which follows come together, and are moved in consequence of a promise that was given in Standing Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 29, line 14, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: This Amendment is really rather more than the Minister suggested. It is an Amendment of considerable substance. It involves a definite increase of the responsibility of the
Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary has not stated why this should be done. I am not necessarily objecting to the Amendment, but I think the House might have been told how it was that this position arose.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: The Amendment was put on the Paper at the special request of Members of the Standing Committee who wanted this addition to the Clause. The Amendment is really a gift to those who fought the Bill upstairs, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not oppose it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Adjustment of rents.)

Amendment made: In page 30, line 4, leave out the words "subsection (1) of section twenty-seven," and insert instead thereof the words "the special conditions set out in this Part."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 31.—(Application to London.)

Amendments made: In page 30, line 34, leave out the words "several metropolitan borough councils," and insert instead thereof the words" councils of the several metropolitan boroughs."

In line 36, leave out the words "the metropolitan borough," and insert instead thereof the word "those."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 32.—(Duty of county council in respect of housing conditions in rural districts.)

Amendments made: In page 31, line 17, leave out the words "in that district."

In line 19, leave out the words "in that district."

In line 21, leave out the word "that," and insert instead thereof the word "the."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Agreements by county council for assisting rural district councils.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 32, line 13, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the word "Government."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think we should know what is the bearing of this word on the rest of the Clause and how it came to be omitted from the original draft of
the Bill. Is this word being inserted at the request of any section of the Committee upstairs?

Miss LAWRENCE: The word is not absolutely necessary, but it is inserted in order to make the sense of the Clause clear.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Supplementary contributions by county council towards housing expenses in rural districts.)

Amendments made: In page 32, line 23, after the word "or," insert the words "Part III of."

In line 34, leave out the words "council of the rural district," and insert instead thereof the words "district council."

In line 38, leave out the words "council of the rural district," and insert instead thereof the words "district council."

In page 33, line 2, leave out the words "in the aggregate."

In line 15, after the word "includes," insert the words "dairy-farming and."

In line 18, leave out the word "and."

In line 30, leave out the words "council of the rural district," and insert instead thereof the words "district council."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 35.—(Powers of county council and Minister in the event of default of rural district council.)

Amendments made: In page 34, line 10, leave out the words "any rural district council," and insert instead thereof the words "the council of any rural district."

In line 28, leave out the word "rural."

In page 35, line 5, leave out the words "such a," and insert instead thereof the words "a county."

In line 11, leave out the first word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "an."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 36.—(Powers of Minister in the event of default by county council in the exercise of transferred powers.)

Amendments made: In page 35, line 29, leave out the word "the," and insert instead thereof the word "his."

In line 31, leave out the words "the Minister," and insert instead thereof the word "himself."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 42.—(Temporary modification of s. 3 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 38, line 18, after the word "Minister," to insert the words:
or, as the case may be, the Department of Health for Scotland.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As no Scottish Member appears to be taking an interest in this matter, I should like to know why these words were omitted from the original draft of the Bill or why it is necessary to introduce them at this stage? We are told that there is a special Scottish Bill to deal with these matters and I fail to see why, in those circumstances, this Amendment is necessary. No explanation has been given by the Minister. I cannot see that it is consequential on anything, or that it is particularly necessary, and it seems rather a curious Amendment when we consider the other Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: The provision as amended in the 1924 Act applies to Scotland, and, as we are amending the 1924 Act, we are amending it completely.

Mr. E. BROWN: I cannot allow this aspersion on Scotland to pass without comment. The fact that the 1924 Act affects both England and Scotland necessitates this Amendment. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is quite wrong, and if he knew a little more about Scottish affairs, he would not cast aspersions on the capability of Scottish Members.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 38, line 20, leave out the word "him," and insert instead thereof the words "the Minister or by the department."

In line 27, after the word "and," insert the word "that."

In page 39, line 3, leave out the word "Acts."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 45.—(Power of local authorities to make advances in respect of repairs to houses.)

Amendment made: In page 41, line 13, after the word "authority," insert the words "or council."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 48.—(Amendment of s. 64 of principal Act.)

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 42, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The provisions of this Act with respect to the validity and date a operation of compulsory purchase orders made under Part I of this Act shall apply in relation to compulsory purchase orders made under Section sixty-four of the principal Act as amended by Sub-section (1) of this Section.
This Amendment is consequential, and it is necessary in order to make the provisions in the new Clause which we have just passed in regard to validity and date of orders, apply to the compulsory purchase of land under Part III of the principal Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. P. OLIVER: I beg to move, in page 42, line 15, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The proviso to Section sixty-four of the principal Act shall have effect as if the words 'forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground or' and the word 'otherwise' were omitted therefrom.
This Clause amends Section 64 of the Housing Act, 1925, which deals with the power to acquire land compulsorily. The proviso to the Clause says:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall authorise the compulsory acquisition for the purposes of this Part of this Act of any land which is the property of any local authority or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or which at the date of the order forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any house.
If this Amendment is accepted, the latter part of the proviso wilt read:
or which at the date of the order is required for the amenity or convenience of any house.
There are considerable areas of land which are not really required for the amenities of any house, and the suggestion is that this land, if required, should form the subject of a compulsory purchase.

Mr. SIMON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: Ordinarily, land which forms part of any park, garden or pleasure ground is required for the
amenity of a house, but the London County Council have found that sometimes in the suburbs you have a house which has become derelict, and which is not required by the sort of people who used to live in it. The garden is also derelict, but it still remains technically a garden. This Amendment will remove from our legislation a difficulty in the case of suburbs which have gone right down the scale.

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that the wording of this Amendment can be accepted. It may be true, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, that there may be cases which the London County Council have in mind, but this goes very much further, and deals with any land which forms part of any park, garden or pleasure ground. It does not say anything about derelict houses in the suburbs. The Amendment is very wide and extensive, and the Government will be well advised to consider this matter further to see whether that is necessary, or whether these words are desirable.

Miss LAWRENCE: There can be no acquisition of any land which is required for the amenity of a house, and that covers all pleasure grounds which are in fact so used. We are advised that this will deal only with pieces of pleasure ground which are now no longer used; but where you have a house which has gone down in the world and which has a derelict garden which is not required for the amenity or convenience of the house that garden can be compulsorily purchased. We are advised that these words may be omitted from the proviso, but if there is any doubt, it will be considered later on. We are assured, however, that the owners are protected.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am amazed at the Minister accepting this Amendment, and am surprised that it was not brought forward at another stage, as it could have been if there were real value in it, and it was merely a matter which concerned the London County Council. I have not the text of the original Act before me, but surely the word "garden" must mean more than a derelict piece of ground round a house which has fallen on evil days. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how she would deal with this particular case under this Section?
Where, even though the house itself is not occupied, you have someone actually using the garden for the purpose of growing, say, vegetables, would she in that instance have the power of obtaining it? I do not desire to stand in the way of ground which is not fully and properly used being obtained. I want to make that perfectly clear, so that there shall be no misrepresentation on that particular point, such as we had many times upstairs, but I think we are entitled, as the Minister has not given a clear legal definition of this point, to have a clear and definite pledge that it does not go outside the case of some derelict piece of ground, and if it is in occupation for the purpose of any reasonable cultivation, then it will not come under the Act. Before we accept hastily an Amendment of this kind, coming as it does from the quarter from which it comes, I think we should be well advised to consider it care fully.
I feel quite sure that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment did it with great knowledge of the facts, but, at the same time, after one remark which dropped from below the Gangway just now, I think we are entitled to look at the matter very carefully and to see if there is anything hidden in it. I noticed one or two hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway seemed to think that they themselves had found some further meaning in the words and, as far as I am concerned, I am mildly suspicious because of the alacrity with which the Parliamentary Secretary accepted the Amendment. I have always noticed that when she accepts Amendments with great speed it seldom has the effect of making a rather bad Bill any better.

Mr. E. BROWN: In giving vent to his suspicions, the last speaker has forgotten his past record. I cannot help comparing his speech with that which he made last night when pleading for another thing. The whole argument then was that be-cause a particular local authority desired to have it they ought to have it. In this case, my hon. Friend desires to get this amendment of the law to facilitate the work of the London County Council, which is a much larger authority and which governs a much larger portion of ground containing many more millions of people. The hon. Member above the
Gangway is not willing to give the London County Council what he was prepared to give the corporation of Torquay yesterday, namely, the power to do what they desire to do. This Amendment is brought in in order to alter a position which made difficulties in the way of re-housing in certain parts of London. I have never based my support of any Amendment on the position of any given local authority, but the hon. Member above the Gangway is the last Member who is entitled to take that view now, when this Amendment is based on entirely the same ground as that which he advanced last night.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 49.—(Provisions with, respect to official representations.)

Amendment made: In page 42, line 21, leave out from the word "being," to the word "twenty," in line 22, and insert the words:
an urban district which is a borough or contains according to the latest published return of the Registrar-General a population of more than.

Dr. DAVIES: I beg to move, in line 22, to leave out the word "twenty," and to insert instead thereof the words "more than ten."
Perhaps it is necessary that I should make some slight explanation of this Amendment. On the Committee stage upstairs, I moved, on behalf of the Urban District Councils Association, an Amendment to leave out the word "county." This association, which consists of practically all the urban district councils in the country, has for the past 18 years successfully contended with the Government that there should be no invidious distinction between urban district councils and the councils of non-county boroughs. In no Act of Parliament which has been passed since that date has that invidious distinction been included. In the Committee upstairs the Parliamentary Secretary was not prepared to accept the Amendment. When she replied one could see at once that the Government were not prepared to accept it though it was moved on behalf of the Urban District Councils Association. In her speech the hon. Lady seemed to give the impression that she was on the side of the big battalions, and
that the people in the districts with large populations who could hope some day to become boroughs were sympathetically considered.
At that moment, however, one of my hon. Friends, with rare Parliamentary skill, suggested to the hon. Lady that she might accept the figure of 20,000 for these urban district councils. The bait was very skilfully cast, and she swallowed it and expressed the opinion that she was prepared to accept 20,000. By that means the principle was conceded that some distinction should be made in the case of urban district councils with a certain population. My hon. Friend simply made the suggestion to get the Government to concede the point, and having succeeded, two other hon. Friends of mine tried to get the hon. Lady to accept the figure of 10,000, but she was adamant, and rather than lose the whole thing we accepted for the time being the figure of 20,000. That figure is not acceptable to the Urban District Councils Association. That body, which is very jealous of their honour and of their record, think it very unfair that they should be penalised by what is called official representation, for official representation means that the county medical officer of health can report to his county council on the condition of housing in any given district without consulting or informing the district medical officer. It seems rather unfair that. 107 boroughs with a population of less than 10,000 should be excluded, while 177 urban districts with a population of between 10,000 and 20,000 should be subjected to this supervision.
The Urban District Councils Association recognises that Clause 49 is founded on the Housing Bill of 1890. I may remark, in passing, that at that date the Urban District Councils Association was not in being because they were under the old Local Government Board. The Housing Act of 1925 was a consolidating Act and re-enacted the provisions of the 1890 Act, which was before the urban district councils were in being. So the councils recognised that the Government, had a certain right or claim to include the provisions in Clause 49, but they have steadfastly maintained, and still maintain, that there should be no invidious distinction between the urban district councils and
the councils of the non-county boroughs. As late as 1923 an official of the Ministry of Health, in giving evidence before the Royal Commission, definitely stated that the powers of these two bodies were coequal. To meet the difficulty which it is recognised the Government are in, it is suggested that this Amendment should be accepted as a happy way out. In asking the Minister to accept it, I would like to emphasise again that the urban district councils take the stand that there should be co-equal powers between themselves and the non-county boroughs.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to second the Amendment.
The representations of the Urban District Councils' Association ought to receive some consideration. Urban districts with a population between 10,000 and 20,000 are, as a rule, growing districts, and they will feel it very deeply if they are penalised at the expense of the non-county boroughs. I hope very much the hon. Lady will see her way to accept the Amendment. In Committee upstairs on the Land Drainage Bill similar proposals have been accepted by the Government, and I hope the Minister of Health will not be behindhand in emulating the example set by the Minister of Agriculture.

Miss LAWRENCE: As has been said, the urban district councils have made very strong representations on this matter, and the Government are willing to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 42, line 40, leave out the word "him," and insert instead thereof the words "the medical officer of health."

In line 43, leave out the words "the duty of the medical officer of health," and insert instead thereof the words "his duty."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 50.—(Power of Minister to enforce exercise of powers by local authorities other than rural district councils.)

Amendment made: In page 44, line 7, leave put the words "a district council," and insert instead thereof the words "the council of an urban district."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 57.—(Definition of "Agricultural Parish" for the purposes of housing subsidies.)

Amendment made: In page 47, line 9, after the word "of," insert the words "Part III of."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 58.—(Interpretation.)

Amendments made: In page 47, line 42, after the word "building," insert the words "or land."

In page 48, line 2, after the word "building," insert the words "or land."

In line 5, after the word "building," insert the words "or land."

In line 15, after the word "or" insert the word "of."—[Miss Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 60.—(Repeals.)

Amendment made: In page 49, line 12, leave out the words "has been made."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Miss LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 49, line 17, after the word "scheme" to insert the words:
and, in the case of London, proceedings for the acquisition of additional land under Section fifty-five of the principal Act).
This Amendment is inserted to preserve the power of the London County Council under Section 55 of the principal Act to buy additional land in connection with schemes already approved by the Minister. It is only intended to keep the provisions of Section 55 alive for existing schemes.

Amendment agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Compulsory purchase orders.)

Amendments made: In page 53, line 7, leave out the words "included in the area."

In page 54, line 31, leave out the words "provisos (ii), (c), and (iii)," and insert instead thereof the words proviso (ii) (b), proviso (ii) (c), and proviso (iii)."—[Miss Lawrence.]

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential Amendments of the Principal Act.)

Amendment made: In page 61, leave out lines 1 to 14.—[Miss Lawrence.]

FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendments made: In page 62, column 3, line 22, leave out the word "and."

In column 3, line 22, at the end, insert the words "and one hundred and twenty-eight."—[Miss Lawrence.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Sir K. WOOD: One observation to be made in connection with the Third Reading is that the Government can make no complaint about the progress of this Bill. In the Committee stage no less than 61 Clauses have been passed since 1st May, and from information which has been given to me I know that on certain occasions the Minister has had to thank members of this party and of the Liberal party for forming a quorum in order that the proceedings might be carried on. Therefore, I hope to hear on no future occasion, as we have heard in the past, that any obstacle has been placed in the way of this Bill. Whatever its success or failure may be, that, of course, is no concern of either of the Opposition parties. Whatever the progress may be, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will have to face considerable difficulties, especially in the immediate future, owing to his own delay in the introduction of the Measure. It was not introduced until 27th March, and the Second Reading was not taken until 7th April, many months after the Government took office, and as a result there is little prospect of any mitigation of unemployment in the building industry this year. Had the Government had their proposals ready, or made a better arrangement of their business, there would have been a much better prospect of relieving unemployment and of making progress—if there is any to be made under this Bill.
I do not think anyone will deny that there is a necessity for steps to be taken by the Government to deal with the housing situation generally, when we know that there are some 100,000 building operatives walking the streets, which is 32,000 more than there were a year ago. So far as the Conservative Opposition are concerned, the Government can have this Bill; we shall not divide on the Third Reading, but I do not think there are many hon. Members who will be satisfied with the Bill. I think it will only be members of the Treasury Bench who will be able to express any real satisfaction. I notice already that many supporters of
the Government, so far from accepting the Government's policy in connection with this Measure, are saying that the Slum Clearance Bill will not build houses in any large numbers, and they are demanding—I do not know what happened to their demands at their meeting to-day—that a housing board should be immediately set up by Parliament, and with the widest powers.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What is the right hon. Member's authority for that statement?

Sir K. WOOD: I will readily give my authority. The hon. Gentleman who proposed that is taking a very active part in regard to unemployment. I refer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan). He had an article in a newspaper this week, saying that one of his proposals was the very one that I have mentioned. Let there be no mistake about that. The Minister of Health will no doubt deal with his own supporters. So far as this Bill is concerned, both the Conservative and Liberal Oppositions have done their best to improve it. We have prevented areas being allowed to continue derelict, and they are not to be built upon except subject to proper restrictions and conditions. We have also in a very important connection strengthened the provision that local authorities must be satisfied with the accommodation that is available when these clearances are made.
The real success or failure of this Bill will depend, as many other Housing Bills before it have depended, upon its financial provisions, and whether the granting of more and more subsidies will achieve what the Government desire. The right hon. Gentleman must have largely altered his own opinion on the value of subsidies. Only a year ago he was prophesying that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) took away the subsidy under the Act of 1923, house building would cease.

Mr. GREENWOOD: indicated dissent.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head.

Mr. E. BROWN: He cannot shake yours.

Sir K. WOOD: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said. He said that my right hon. Friend in
abolishing the subsidy under the Act of 1923 was actually murdering his own child. Yet we were told in a debate of a week ago that, although the 1923 subsidy was abolished, private enterprise continues to build houses, without subsidy, at almost exactly the same rate as it had been doing with the subsidy. Those are the words of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. The question to which I would address myself, and it is the vital question in connection with this Bill, is, will the increased subsidy which is being given in the Bill bring about houses at lower rents for the poorer paid members of the community The increased subsidy is really the only proposal, and it is what one would expect from a Socialist Government, because all their solutions in the end finish with the question as to whether or not money will solve the problem.
I would remind the House that this Bill is designed only to deal with the slum dwellers. The Minister of Health is making no proposal in relation to the Wheatley Act. Therefore the proposal that we are considering to-night is one to deal with a certain section of the community. So far as the larger body of poorly paid workers are concerned they have to rest, as the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly stated in the Committee stage, on the 1924 subsidy. We know that so far as they are concerned, notwithstanding the increased subsidy given under the Wheatley Act, the rents of the Wheatley houses are no lower than the rents of the Chamberlain houses, for which a smaller subsidy was given. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If any hon. Member challenges that statement, I would advise him to address a question to the Minister of Health on the subject next week. Taking the average of houses up and down the country, the rents of the Wheatley houses, notwithstanding the larger subsidy, are no less than the rents of the Chamberlain houses, with a less subsidy. Therefore, so far as the great mass of the poorer paid workers are concerned, hon. Members opposite have to face this position, that the Government during the past 12 months have done nothing for them, and the right hon. Gentleman has no proposition in relation to them so far as the future is concerned. Hon. Members may say to me that there is this Bill, which is designed to produce houses at such rents as the poorer paid
members of the community can afford to pay.
I say, with deliberation, that the whole of these proposals depend upon whether or not the cost of houses remain at the present price. If, as has always been the experience before whenever an increased subsidy has been brought in, the price of houses rises, we will say by £50, the whole advantage of this Bill will disappear so far as the poorer paid workers are concerned. Hon. Members opposite have repeatedly admitted that. They have said that in connection with all their proposals. They said in their election manifesto that an increased subsidy should always be accompanied by provisions against profiteering. It is an amazing thing that we find no Clause in this Bill which in any way follows up the undertaking which was given by the Labour party at the election that they would not only deal with profiteering in food but with profiteering in building materials. This Bill comes forward with a proposal for an increased subsidy but not accompanied by what the Labour party has always said was necessary, namely, provision against profiteering.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Would you support such a Bill?

Sir K. WOOD: Do not ask silly questions. Supporters of the Government think that they can ride off by asking whether the Opposition would support a hypothetical Measure which the Government have no intention of introducing. That is obviously an impossible position. There is a very great danger in the suggestion which the Minister for Health has again enunciated this afternoon that he is going to introduce for the first time in this country what may be called differential rents. He suggests, and so has the Parliamentary Secretary on many occasions, the proposition that there will be one class of the community occupying exactly the same type of house, and paying a different rent, to another section. It is placing a most unfair burden upon the local authorities. I know what it would mean in the end, if it were possible and capable of being carried out, which I do not think it will be. The local authorities would have to adopt a test, which I have always undertood hon. Members opposite strenuously resisted. Local authorities would have to inquire
into the means of the occupants of each house.
If you are going to have differential rents, and going to permit people to pay lower rents than others for similar houses, you are bound, if you want to be fair and endeavour to meet the most difficult claim on equitable lines, to adopt the method of asking local authorities to inquire into the circumstances of those people. That is putting a burden upon local authorities which was resisted again and again under the widows' pensions scheme, and has been resisted very successfully in regard to the maintenance scheme in the Education Bill. I do not think you will find many local authorities prepared to adopt that very distasteful method. In the end, the local authorities will take the easy course, and they generally reduce, to the extent that the subsidy gives them, the rents of all classes of houses.

Mr. MOSES: Hear, hear.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman who comes from a naval portion of the country is an optimist; otherwise, I am sure he would not cheer. If you, in fact, used that subsidy in the reduction of rents, it would be a paltry reduction of the very smallest order indeed. You have only to make a small calculation to see that that would be so.

Mr. MOSES: Would it be a reduction?

Sir K. WOOD: You have only to apply it to a town like Plymouth to find out, what the increased subsidy would give to Plymouth and to apply the principle of giving the benefit of that subsidy over the whole of the houses and tenants of Plymouth, to come to the conclusion that, provided the cost of building did not go up, the advantage to tenants could be reckoned in pennies, twopences or threepences. Is that all this Bill means? Is that the only result after many months of consideration that the Labour party brings to the people of this country? Is that all they promised? The hon. Gentleman can observe my words, and the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, who has had as much experience as any Member of this House. They can recall our words later on. I am not surprised that this Bill has been received practically without enthusiasm. It shows a sort of half-heartedness in dealing with the problem.
10.0 p.m.
We regret that it was not possible this afternoon to discuss the question of compensation under Clause 46. I wanted to say on that question that this Bill, apart altogether from the question of landlords and people who are owners of property, hits the small shopkeepers, who are put into a most unfair and unjust position. At the present time, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, unless they are amended in another place, the local authorities can deal with the small shop keeper exactly as they think fit. He has no right to go to the local authorities and say, "I am not going to be disturbed from the business that I have built up," when it is going to be taken from him. He is left under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals entirely in the hands of the local authorities. If they like, they can give him a gift or a tip or a dole, or whatever you like to call it. They may not do so. That is the most unfair position in which to place the small shopkeeper of the country. In very many cases he has put a good deal of his lifework and endeavour into the business with which he is concerned. I regret very much indeed that his case has been left out of consideration.
The man who owns property in a clearance area, who himself has done nothing wrong and has undertaken all that the local authority has required him to do in his house, but whose house is condemned because of the bad arrangements of the streets and matters of that kind is also put in an unfair position under these proposals. I would not for a moment defend a man who was making a profit, out of disgraceful and discreditable property. But the man who has kept his property in decent repair and obeyed all the orders of the local authority, and whose property is condemned entirely owing to the circumstances I have mentioned, is in a different category, and I had hoped, would be put in a different legal position altogether, to that of the bad slum owner. I say that that is a great blot on the Bill both with regard to the shopkeeper and the owner.
It is very difficult for me to understand why these proposals have taken nearly a year to be designed and prepared. I venture to suggest, and I think I should have the agreement of most Members of the House on all sides, that they honestly
show little originality or foresight and few people expect them to accomplish much. A small number of houses may be built, as a consequence of it, but, like the unemployed, the slum dweller has received mere promises rather than performance from this Government, and the Bill is likely to make little or no impression upon the national housing situation.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We have had from the right hon. Gentleman a typical speech, amusing and irrelevant, with echoes and re-echoes of speeches that I seem to have heard in the dim and distant past, echoes indeed of his leader. I venture to say that some of his statements are in direct conflict with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) said this afternoon. I regret that in the interests of Conservative unity the right hon. Gentleman was not here to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) who has devoted so much time to a terrific attack upon the principle of differential rents which the right hon. Gentleman for Edgbaston urged us was essential to deal with this problem in a, satisfactory manner. It is not for me to heal the breaches in the ranks of the Opposition, and I prefer to deal with what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Bill and about the general housing situation. If I felt about this Bill as the right hon. Gentleman says he feels, I should go into the Lobby against it. He has told us that this Bill is going to do nothing, or next to nothing, and that it is going to make the situation even worse than it is at the present moment. We have been told that we have adopted a mistaken line of policy, that it is not original, and that there is nothing in it. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich were the statesman we hope he is, he would divide against this Bill. It is rather significant that on the Second Reading of the Bill, and on the Financial Resolution, nobody dared to go into the Lobby against this Measure.
We have just heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he does not propose to divide against the Third Reading. Am I to understand that it is the policy of the Conservative party to support Measures like this which they say are no use, or is it that the right hon. Gentle-
man in his heart knows that this is a good Bill, but he dare not mention that fact. The right hon. Gentleman has complained about the delay in the introduction of this Bill. What constructive proposal was put forward during 4½ years of the late Government's tenure of office to deal with-the problem of housing? How did the late Government grapple with the problem of the slums By leaving it alone. The late Government made two attempts to assist at the solution of this problem, one by reducing the housing subsidy, and the other by a proposal to recondition rural cottages. Under that policy, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston has admitted, there has not been a conspicuous success. Under these circumstances it is not for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich to turn round and complain that I have taken seven months to frame a Measure, when for 4½ years this problem remained without a single proposal emanating from the ranks of the Government which enjoyed a stupendous majority, a majority which they did not understand how to use.
We have been told by the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends on this side of the House are not satisfied with this Bill. I welcome the interest taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the affairs of our party, and I can assure him that his interest is so recent and his ignorance so abyssmal, that on this matter he happens to be wrong. I do not want to go into the question of subsidies, because the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is that no public money should be spent on slum clearances at all. Is that the attitude that Members of the Conservative party are taking up? If that be so, if they feel in their bones that the expenditure of public money upon housing is a mistake and raises prices and indirectly raises rents, it is their duty to divide against proposals to spend public money for that purpose.
There has been no Minister of Health since the War who has not realised that one element in the solution of this problem was the provision of public money. It may be true that the subsidy to private builders has exhausted its usefulness. I will take the right hon. Gentleman's word for that, because he knows more about it than I do. All that has happened has proved that the subsidy
given to the private builder was a waste of public money, because building by private enterprise has taken place on the same scale since the subsidy came to an end. Far be it from me to assist in unnecessarily maintaining higher prices and profits for the private builder.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich uttered a final wail about compensation. I thought we might have had a, good deal more opposition from hon. Members opposite on the question of compensation for the slum landlords, but that opposition has not been real, and hon. Members have never dared to challenge the principle of the Act of 1919. I know they would have liked to have done, but they have not done so. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that more public money should be devoted to the payment of compensation to slum landlords, what becomes of his theory that the expenditure of public money for this purpose is wrong? The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. It is undoubtedly true to-day that any additional expenditure of money on the payment of compensation would be a waste of our public resources. I am glad to think that, although we have had during the course of the debates on this Bill improvements made in minor particulars, the principle of the Bill still remains, and we have not given away the principle accepted in 1919 by the party opposite. We have not departed from the principle accepted by all parties 11 years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich said that there is no proposal in this Measure to deal with the Wheatley Act. Why should there be? The Wheatley Act is still on the Statute Book, and the existing subsidy would have been reduced last October but for the change of Government. That Act still continues in force. That was not the problem with which we have to deal. We are dealing with a new problem. Some six years ago the Housing Bill of 1924 was passed through this House. I remember the promises which were made then about that Bill by those who are sitting on the benches opposite. I remember the present Lord Brentford saying that that Bill would never produce a, single house, but it has produced over 260,000 houses owned by public authori-
ties,and let at reasonable rents to the citizens who come under those local authorities.

Dr. DAVIES: What rents?

Mr. MOSES: They are the lowest rents in our city.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May I say that I was privileged to be connected with the Act of 1924. It is a magnificent memorial to a short lived Government, and a magnificent memorial to one who has departed this life since the present Bill was introduced. It is a Bill which has provided houses to let, which is continuing to provide houses to let, and which still has a great future before it.
That did not complete the problem. This is not an alternative to the Act of 1924; it is complementary to the Act of 1924. It is to deal specifically now with a problem which hitherto we have ignored, a problem which cannot be dealt with merely by putting up more houses, but which can only be dealt with by the double policy of the destruction and reform of the areas on the one hand, and new building on the other; and the two things have to be linked together. I can imagine new building going on and still the foulest of our slums remaining in existence, and it seems to me essential, at the stage at which we have arrived, that we should make a deliberate and definite attempt at the demolition of these areas parallel with rebuilding for the people who have been displaced. That we are providing under this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich, while willing to wound, is afraid to strike. He is not prepared to vote against the Bill, but he does not think that it is very much good. Let me tell him that, so far as I know, with possibly two exceptions, all the persons in this country who call themselves housing reformers, and all the people with experience in local government disagree, with the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) may be one of the two. I am not so sure that he and the right hon. Gentleman see eye to eye, but it is not for me to resolve their difficulties. The point is that, speaking generally, people interested in housing in this country—bodies like the
National Housing and Town Planning Council, the large local authorities in this country, the organisations of local authorities in this country—have welcomed this Bill. I say that they have as much interest in this problem as anybody in this House, and I say that they are in as good a position to judge of the value of this Bill as anybody in this House; and few criticisms in principle have come from them. I have welcomed all the critioisms that have come from them, but in almost every case such criticisms as there have been have been criticisms of detail and not of principle. It is because of that general body of disinterested public opinion outside this House which is favourable to the Bill that I believe that the Bill has a good deal rosier future than hon. Members opposite care to think is likely to be the case.
It is easier to build new houses on prairie land than it is to carry out the double duty of building new houses and destroying the hovels that exist to-day. Therefore, although I will do what I can to promote activity under the Wheatley Act, I am not going to pretend that the slums which have been in the making for 400 years are going to be destroyed in four months. I do say, however, that in this Bill we have the first comprehensive Measure designed to deal with this problem in a new and more effective way. I believe that the local authorities mean to work the Bill to the fullest extent. I hope that they will. I would appeal to them, because this is a problem that concerns the whole of our people, to make the maximum use of the Measure which, with me, they helped to work out: but I would also appeal, beyond them, to the intelligent public of this country. I am bound to admit that all local authorities are not progressive bodies. I am bound to admit that local authorities, like political parties, are not all equally good, or are not all equally bad; but behind the local authorities, who have, or I hope shortly will have, these new powers, lies a developing public opinion which is unhappy at the thought that a substantial proportion of our people are living under conditions which we could not defend before any human tribunal. It is to them that we have a right to appeal beyond Parliament and beyond the local authorities.
I think all of us in all parties ought to appeal to public opinion to make this Bill, in which all parties have co-operated, a real success. I have no personal feeling in this matter. I do not mind by whose name the Bill is called, but I care profoundly that Parliament in 1930, having realised more completely and clearly than ever before the seriousness of this problem, should put on the Statute Book legislation which they can whole-heartedly ask the people of the country to support. I am not saying it is a perfect Bill. No perfect Measure ever emanated from human institutions, and I have seen so many bad Bills that I should hardly believe it if I saw a perfect one. But it is at least an honest attempt to deal with a serious problem. I believe all parties in the House recognise it as such, and I believe those who are interested in housing outside the House recognise it as such and I, therefore, with confidence call on Members inside the House and the public outside, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, to make it the success which the seriousness of the problem demands for, unless we deal with those people who are housed in the worst conditions, we shall still have a canker at the heart of our people. The real position of this country in the eyes of the world does not depend upon the best circumstanced people. It depends upon how decently we treat the people whose circumstances are the worst, and amongst the worst housed people are some of our best citizens. We are entitled to ask that this Bill, once it is on the Statute Book, shall be given an opportunity of carrying out its possibilities.

Mr. SIMON: I am sure that Members in all parts of the House will sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's last words and that everyone of us, when the Bill is on the Statute Book, will do everything he possibly can to make it a success. I cannot help, however, agreeing with very great regret with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) in believing that this is a timid and half-hearted Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has compared it with the Wheatley Act of 1924. The contrast between the two seems almost startling. Members of my party considered the Bill of 1924 too courageous. We thought it went too far, and the bulk of our Amendments were to reduce the amount of the subsidy, and what was
done. They were limiting Amendments. On this Bill our Amendments have been exactly the opposite. The Bill is so limited that we have moved Amendments endeavouring to make it more effective—a complete contrast to our attitude in 1924. The sole reason being the greater timidity of the Bill as compared with the courage of the 1924 Bill.
What is the problem this Bill has to deal with? The right hon. Gentleman has said it is a double problem, first of all to sweep away the slums and, secondly, to build a large number of houses to be let at low rents, and clearly the second is the important thing. If we can build, as Mr. Wheatley wanted, 225,000 houses a year to be let at really low rents, the pulling down of the slum houses is a very easy job to be got on with as quickly as possible. It is a depressing thing that the rate of building these new houses has slowed down in a most alarming manner in the last two or three years. We had an opportunity of discussing the matter a few days ago, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as satisfied with the present rate of building. Since then I have received from the Ministry of Health figures which are quite conclusive on the matter. If you take the boom year which resulted from the Chamberlain Act and the Wheatley Act, the year ending September, 1927, there ware very nearly 100,000 houses built to let under the Wheatley Act. In the last eight months we have been building houses to let at just over half the rate at which they were built during the boom year. If you take the total building in the boom year, we built over 270,000 houses. In the last six months ending 31st March, which is the latest period for which figures are available, we built almost exactly 150,000 houses, or only 60 per cent. of the houses built during that boom year. The depressing thing is that the right hon. Gentleman seems to be satisfied with the rate of building. These are his own figures and cannot be controverted. The hon. Lady shakes her head. I obtained them in answer to questions only a few days ago! 50 per cent. of the houses to let and 60 per cent. of the total houses. If we were now building houses at the same rate as we did in that year we should
be employing something approaching 200,000 more men in the building trade than we are employing now. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny those figures. They were taken from direct answers given during the last few days by the Ministry of Health.
Will this new Bill remedy that side of the problem? Will it succeed in getting new houses built? The valuable feature of the new Bill—I do not know whether the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich said that the Bill was no use; if he did I do not agree with him—is that it is a step in the right direction and a Bill for which we should vote. In many ways it is on the right lines. Our only regret is that it does not go further. The subsidy, if it does not put up the price of building, is 1s. a week more than the Wheatley subsidy. In many towns the family house—the three bedroom non-parlour house—is being let at not less than 13s. 6d. It is being let at this figure in Manchester. If the Greenwood houses are built and there is simply a flat rate reduction of 1s., it will mean that you are going to get them at 12s. 6d. That is not going to clear the slums. It is that fact which shows the timidity of this Bill. When we on these benches pressed for an Amendment to insist on differential rents so that there should be an accumulation and that some pressure could be brought to bear by this Measure to force the local authorities to let houses at really low rents, again timidity came in. He says that he cannot interfere with local authorities, and that if Manchester likes to let Greenwood houses at 11s. 6d. he must leave them to do so. I am a believer in local authorities, but I think in a case of this sort that one ought not to let the more backward authorities waste the opportunities which are provided by the Bill to a moderate extent of giving differential rents and so getting some of the poor families, and especially the children, away from the slum dwellings. There is another limit to the Bill. The grant is only available to persons living in clearance areas or improvement areas. Altogether, judging by speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made, not more than probably one-tenth of the working-class live in any great centre, and that is why it is impossible for the Bill to meet the
tremendous need for approximately doubling the rate of building which is going on to-day.
These are the reasons why I deplore the timidity of this Bill. I hope that when the Bill is on the Statute Book all of us will, as the right hon. Gentle-man has said, do all that we can to help, but the person who really can make a difference to the Measure is the right hon. Gentleman himself. I hope that when it comes to administration he will show energy, vigour, and determination to get cheap houses built under the Measure in contrast to the lack of vigour which he has shown in bringing the matter before the House.

Mr. BUTLER: I want to trespass for a few minutes on the time of the House in order to deal with the question of rural houses, and to mention one or two points in connection with that subject. Rural housing is dealt with in Part 4 of the Bill and we have a definition of an agricultural parish in Clause 57. In Part 4 the principle of preferential treatment to rural districts is maintained, and I take no exception to the Bill in that respect. As regards the question of rural district councils and possible control by county councils, I cannot share the apprehensions of rural district councils that they will be bullied by county councils. I welcome the Clause which gives the possibility of agreement between rural district councils and county councils whereby rural district councils are provided with greater opportunities and facilities to improve the housing conditions in rural districts. It is unnecessary to say much about the serious condition of housing in many rural districts, and if it were not for a very definite anomaly in the Bill I should not have taken part in this discussion. But the housing conditions being as serious as they are in some rural areas, and the lack of houses being so serious, it is necessary to point out the anomaly which slips into the Bill under the definition of an agricultural parish in Clause 57. It was acknowledged by the Minister of Health in Committee that this anomaly exists; and the result is that there are several parishes in this country—I know of two in my own particular rural district—which will not get the grant because they do not come under the definition of an agricultural parish
as laid down in Clause 57. I hope it may be possible for the House to have some assurance that steps will be taken to remedy this defect.
The definition of an agricultural parish in Clause 57 is wrong. The date of October, 1929, is taken and that means there are many parishes in England which will not get the grant at present. That is absolutely wrong. Surely it is possible to find some words to ante-date the definition in the Bill and make it possible for these parishes to receive the grant. The Minister said that if the definition was altered there would be residential quarters which would get a grant to which they are not entitled and that it would include too many parishes. If there are too many parishes in England which deserve the grant an attempt should be made to remedy the defect in the Bill which, although a small one, is going to have a serious effect on agricultural workers, who deserve better housing conditions than anybody else but who are not going to get them owing to this defect in drafting. I hope I shall have an answer from the Government on these points.

Mr. PALMER: I welcome this Bill. The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon), has said that the Wheatley Act went too far, whilst this Bill does not go far enough. This Measure is not intended to supersede the Wheatley Act; it is complementary. It is to perform a work in addition to that which is being done under the Wheatley Act. Another thing which is apparent by this debate is the perversity of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Withington has truly said that in the case of the Wheatley Act he and his party were trying to restrain us from going too far, but in this Bill he would like us to go further. Reference has been made to the measure of discontent on this side of the House. For myself and for those associated with me, I would say that we would have been not less pleased if it had been possible to have carried the provisions of the Bill even further than they have gone. What the House of Commons must face is the fact that the Bill is the first real attempt in this House to clear away that blot in English history of our slum dwellings. I hope that the Bill will perform the twofold purpose of clearing the slum areas
and producing houses at a rent that people can afford to pay.
Another thing which I think is a compliment to what will be known as the Greenwood Act is the fact that every speaker from the Opposition side has at tempted to level down the subsidy provisions of this Bill to former Acts, such as the Act of the last Government. I am pleased to find that the Minister has not yielded to such subtle suggestions. I want the financial provisions of the subsidy in this Bill to stand out in distinction from the provisions of the Wheatley Act and the Chamberlain Act, and to show that this Government, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Withington, is under this Bill at least going further than we have gone in any other Act in building houses at a rent which people may hope to pay. I support the Third Reading.

Miss RATHBONE: I agree with much that other speakers have said about the timidity of this Bill, but I think it would be unjust to the Minister to forget that, after all, he has been limited by the financial resources that were placed at his disposal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Those of us who criticise the meagre provisions of the Bill must remember that difficulty. I shall confine the very few remarks that I have time to make to suggesting ways in which it appears to me that the value of this Bill will depend on the kind of use that is made of it. The Minister has just told us that local authorities are warm admirers of the Bill. The Minister and the local authorities appear to have formed a kind of mutual admiration society, for we have observed that whenever we have made a criticism of any provision of the Bill, the reply has been, "We must trust the local authorities." The Minister has persistently refused to lay any commands on the local authorities. May we at least entreat him to make his wishes clear, to give a clear lead to the local authorities? The amount of the financial assistance available is so small, as the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) has said, that unless very careful and scientific use is made of it it will do very little.
I would suggest three or four ways in which waste can be avoided. First of all, may we trust that the Minister will strictly discourage the local authorities from undertaking any unnecessary building upon central and expensive sites? Great pressure is put on every local authority to rehouse its slum dwellers in situ because the people do not like to move far from their former homes, but in nine cases out of ten, I think that is an unnecessary and extravagant policy, and should only be permitted where a very strong case has been made out for it. Then the instructions issued under this Measure should make clear, what was only made clear to us after hours of discussion in Committee, namely, that it is not essential for local authorities to give a preference to slum dwellers merely because they are slum dwellers. Unfortunately, the Clauses of the Bill have been so drafted as to give very strong countenance to the view that the Bill is intended for the exclusive purpose of dishousing people and then rehousing the same people who have lived in the slums in certain houses. We now know that that is not necessary. As was said in the Committee, "there is no compulsion on a local authority to offer accommodation for a single one of those displaced persons in a single one of the new houses." That was the statement of the hon. Member for Withington, and the Attorney-General said, "that was his view of the Clause in question." I fear, however, that the Bill will not be so understood by the local authorities unless the instructions sent out, to them make it perfectly clear.
There is, thirdly, the point which we have been discussing already. Since the Minister has refused to forbid local authorities to spend money in spreading out the subsidy thinly over all the houses I hope that at least consideration will be given to the one and only economic way of children rent rebates. Fourth and lastly, may I point out that we have been reminded by the Minister that this Measure is not superseding, but supplementary. Let it remain supplementary in the sense that every single action taken under it shall have the object not of superseding, but of supplementing the use that can be made of the Wheatley Act. Let it be used in such a way as to dovetail into the Wheatley Act. The
figures which have been put before the House by the hon. Member for Withington as to the falling-off of housing under the Wheatley Act are, I think, regretted by us all, but it is not surprising that when a new Measure is known to be on the tapis local authorities should open their mouths to see what is going to drop into them and should hesitate before using to full advantage what they have already got.
When this Measure is on the Statute Book local authorities will have no excuse for concentrating only on this Measure, and it is to be hoped that it will act as a stimulus to the Wheatley scheme. What local authorities have to do is to push on with this Measure and to make the utmost use of it, but never to forget that they cannot claim a grant under this Measure which is not balanced by a person displaced from the slums. Displacing people from the slums, because of the difficult negotiations which have to go on with property owners and others, is bound to be a slow process. Therefore action under this Measure is bound to be limited, but if it is supplemented by abundant action under the Wheatley Act so that the two dovetail into one another, then I believe the two will make a comprehensive whole. It should be made clear to the local authorities that the differential rents which are permitted tinder this Measure are not after all confined to this Measure. We know that it is possible, even under the Wheatley Act to establish children's rent rebates and in that way to secure a more economical use of the existing subsidies which will enable local authorities to benefit not merely slum population but all those people who are living whether in pre-War houses or in Wheatley houses at present and are paying rents grossly in excess of their real ability to pay.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am sorry to cut short this debate, but I understand that the discussion on this Bill must finish at 11 o'clock, and therefore I must necessarily be brief and I am sorry if my intervention at this stage should prevent other Members who had intended to speak from taking part in the debate. I want to reply to two or three things that have been said in this debate. The complaint was made that the definition of rural parishes must cut out a great
many districts that deserve assistance. This raises an old question. Agricultural parishes ask for special help on the ground of their special problems, and when they get it, others that are little better ask for some special help, and so the process and demands go on; and if we yielded them, the real rural parishes would again ask for special help. The definition takes in all the districts which are purely rural and where the rating resources of the authority are exceptionally low. That matter has been discussed over and over again, and I am afraid that we cannot hold out any hope of a further widening of the definition. I want to come to the speech of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) He speaks as if all State-aided houses are for letting, and he repeated it again to-night.

Mr. SIMON: I said that in 1927, 100,000 Wheatley houses were built, and at the present time they are being built at the rate of less than 50,000 a year.

Miss LAWRENCE: But under the Wheatley Act there are subsidies for private enterprise, and private enterprise receives subsidies under that Act, and private enterprise houses were built for sale and not for letting under that Act. Every local authority and every man in private enterprise rushed to build houses before September, 1927. As a result, the figures for 1927 were very high. Then local authorities and private enterprise alike slumped in the months after September, 1927. The total number of houses built by private enterprise and others were 109,000 in 1924, 159,000 in 1925, 197,000 in 1926, 273,000 in 1927. They then dropped in 1928 to 166,000 and they went up in 1929 to 203,000. If we take the most recent figures for housing begun under local authorities, we have very many more houses commenced in the first five months of 1930 than we have had for years. In 1928 there were 22,000, in 1929, 25,000, and this year, 26,000. Following the slump, the local authorities are now taking up with the building, which is going on extremely satisfactorily.

Mr. SIMON: This is an important matter. The hon. Lady is dealing with the question of the rate of building for the six months ended 31st March. The total house-building was 75,000 houses, or
at the rate of 150,000 a year, which was substantially lower than any of the figures she has given.

Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Member is lumping private enterprise and local authorities together. I have not got the private enterprise houses after March last.

Mr. SIMON: Are not the figures for the six months ending 31st March?

Miss LAWRENCE: The houses provided by local authorities in the year ending 31st March show that the figures have gone up in the year. The numbers finished in the first five months went down, but the numbers commenced in the first five months by local authorities have risen considerably. They have begun many more houses than was the case last year, and very many more than in the year before for the same period, but they have not finished quite so many.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does that refer to houses begun or schemes begun?

Miss LAWRENCE: Houses begun.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not the case that during the 12 months ended 31st May, 1930, the number of completed houses ranking for subsidy was 99,124 and the corresponding number during the previous 12 months was 107,439, showing a decrease of 8,000?

Miss LAWRENCE: The hon. Gentleman is raising the old story. Private enterprise has built more houses of all kinds but fewer houses have got the subsidy. The subsidy was taken away from private houses last September, and, of course, the number of State-aided houses is affected. Private enterprise houses have gone up and the number of local authority houses have also gone up. The mere fact that private enterprise houses ceased to receive the subsidy is the reason why the figure referred to has gone down. I am ashamed to waste more time over it. The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) sympathised with us, but he did so last time. He says that this time we shall come to a bad end, but he said that last time. He is like the very affectionate or despondent aunt or uncle who hopes the child will turn out right, but very much doubts it when he remembers its parents.

Mr. SIMON: I never said anything of the kind last time.

Miss LAWRENCE: I have been looking it up. The hon. Member said we should never get the labour, or he was very doubtful whether we should. He has mixed his sympathy with exactly those very fears that we should come to a terrible end.

Mr. SIMON: I do not remember saying anything of the sort.

Miss LAWRENCE: His speeches were very kind speeches hoping against hope, but they were very depressing speeches to listen to. The right hon. Member for Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) said he hoped that we should recall his words three or four years hence. In 1924 he said of the Wheatley, Act that the author of it would get no further, or very little further, with his scheme, not on account of the lack of money in the country or because the country did not desire to spend it, but because the Government had not solved the great difficulty of the men.

Sir K. WOOD: As the hon. Lady has referred to me perhaps I may say that the Wheatley Act did not meet its purpose as announced by its author, and that was to build houses to let for the poorer-paid workers. The Wheatley Act has been a complete failure, and is today so far as that is concerned.

Miss LAWRENCE: What the right hon. Member said last time was that it would be a complete failure because we could not get enough bricklayers to lay the bricks; and another hon. Member of this House, who has since been exalted to another place, also took the same view. I turn from these objections to ask the House to consider this Bill as a whole, and to consider it in the perspective of the housing policy of the Labour party. It is six years almost to the day since we had that Labour Government in office. My right hon. Friend the present Minister of Health was then Parliamentary Secretary. Speaking at this Box he ventured on a prophecy among the chorus of prophecies that went up from the other side. He said he prophesied that the Wheatley Act would open a new era in the history of housing. Can anybody deny that it has? It is the only Act which has provided, in any quantity, houses to let, and the best
monument of that short-lived Labour Government and of the statesman whose loss we all deplore is to be found in the number of little houses and homes for the workers which have sprung up all over the country.
We are now going forward to complete the structure raised by the right hon. Gentleman who has passed away. We go forward now to attack the slum question. We give to local authorities far greater freedom than they have ever possessed,, and we give them very large additional subsidies; and I desire to remark, after having consulted the local authorities, that they are satisfied with the subsidy. We set the local authorities free to deal with that old inveterate evil of the slums. For more than 50 years they have increased infantile mortality, increased tuberculosis, heightened the death rate and sapped the vitality of our people. That is the scheme we have undertaken, and my last words on this matter before we leave the Bill is to repeat the prophecy made by my right hon. Friend when he stood in this place and in my position in 1924—a prophecy so abundantly justified—that with this Bill we are opening a new era in the housing of the people.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Confirmation of scheduled agreements.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.0 p.m.

Mr. MANDEB: This is a very important Bill, and I hope it will not be allowed to go through without some explanation or comment from the Government benches. As one who is half a Canadian, I hope that I may be allowed to say to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that I hope the time will soon come when it will not be necessary for the great Dominion of Canada to come to this House in order to pass an
Act which concerns their own internal affairs. The position of Dominion status really cannot have been properly realised so long as Canada cannot govern without the consent of this House. I hope that India may notice that she is not the only Dominion that has to come to this House to get legislation carried out for the alteration of her laws. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give some indication as to what steps are being taken to prevent legislation of this kind for a Dominion being brought before this House. I hope that he will be able to indicate that something is proposed to be done, either as a result of the Imperial Conference, or otherwise, which will enable Canada to administer her own affairs, just as Australia and South Africa and, I think, other Dominions can do.

The CHAIRMAN: I thought that the hon. Member was going to move something in relation to Clause 1.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The kernel of the Bill rests in Clause 1. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to give us a short explanation of the Clause. I hope that his experience of his office so far as Clause 1 is concerned will be much happier than wag his experience in his last job.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has said that he is half a Canadian. The part that was Canadian ought to have prompted him not to have said what he did.

Mr. MANDER: Why?

Mr. THOMAS: Because if you were half a Canadian you must know the significance of what you were saying. It is easy to make a mere statement that you hope the time will come when there will be no such Bill as this introduced. You cannot say that with any knowledge of the real Canadian position. I will state the position in a few sentences. The North America Bill is a Bill which is essential for the joint authority of the Empire, and it specially preserves the Provincial Legislatures. It is as much in the interests of their protection as anything else. The North America Bill provides that certain powers now exercised
by the Central Parliament can only be altered by agreement between the Provinces and the Central Parliament in what is called a Petition to His Majesty. The Petition to His Majesty takes the form of merely confirming in this House the Royal Assent. That is all that is contained in this Bill, nothing more and nothing less. The object in asking that this Bill shall go speedily through the House is to make it perfectly clear that no one in this House desires to interfere with the internal affairs of Canada.
The hon. Member who made those observations must know that an election is taking place in Canada, and nothing is more dangerous, and there is nothing we should avoid more, than doing or saying anything calculated to interfere with Canada's internal affairs. I hope that the Committee will clearly understand that this is not a Bill for taking an objection to. It is merely a Bill in accordance with the North American Act, enabling the date of one of the Provinces to be celebrated on 15th July by the transfer from the central authority of certain rights now enjoyed and exercised by the central authority, which, from the date of this sanction will be utilised by the Provinces. It is a unanimous Bill. I hope that it will be treated as an agreed Bill.

Mr. E. BROWN: I do not think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was necessary on account of the words of my hon. Friend. He has rather misled the Committee on the matter. He said that this Bill merely confirms an arrangement made. Surely it is not so? It does not merely confirm the arrangement of the four Provincial Governments established since the Act of 1867, but makes valid that agreement. When this Bill passes unanimously in this House, as no doubt it will do, it not merely confirms but it makes valid that agreement.

Mr. THOMAS: I made it perfectly clear that it was an agreement between the Provincial Parliaments and the central authority. This Bill does make it valid; it transfers back to these people the authority that the central authority now exercises.

Mr. BROWN: It is a distinction between the Provinces which were in the
Canadian Confederation in 1867, and those that became Provinces afterwards. One of the distinctions is that those before 1867 bad control of their lands, forests and minerals. There is an agreement in Canada that this should be done. [Interruption.] Surely hon. Members who profess such great devotion to the Empire will let me say a word in favour of the Bill? If a Minister attacks a friend of mine, surely I am allowed to point out his error? It is obvious that the Dominion itself cannot be judge between its own case and the case of its Province, if there should be a difference. In this case there is no difference. We must give our sanction in their use of this Bill, as it is to be passed by 15th July in order to give Manitoba a chance to celebrate its anniversary in due time, and to be in possession of the rights confirmed by this Measure. I am sure the whole Committee will wish the right hon. Gentleman not only to get the Measure passed, but to send from the House as a whole a message wishing the Province not merely a glorious anniversary, but a great success in the working of the new arrangement under which they and the other three Provinces are placed in a position of equal status in the Dominion of Canada.

Clauses 2 (Extension of scheduled agreement relating to Alberta) and 3 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Thomas.]

Mr. MANDER: In view of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I should like to say that I raised a point of great interest and I had no intention of making any criticism of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] The right hon. Gentleman has made an attack upon me, and I am quite in order in replying to it. I think the right hon. Gentleman misconstrued what I said. I referred only to Canada. The right hon. Gentleman ought
not to ask us to pass a Bill of this kind sub silentio. I raised only points of general interest and did so in no hostile spirit.

Mr. THOMAS: I am sorry that the hon. Member thought that I made an attack upon him, because I had no such intention.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH ARMY (PAGEANTS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The matter that I desire to raise arises out of an astonishing decision by the Secretary of State for War in regard to a local pageant at Lancaster, in my constituency. His decision involves disallowing the participation of some 50 men from the local depot of the King's Own Royal Regiment of Lancaster to participate in this pageant. The matter has considerable national as well as local interest, and in view of the widespread indignation and surprise among my constituents, I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman the local considerations. I hope that when he has heard the arguments he will reconsider his decision and soften his heart.
One of the main objects of this pageant is to provide funds for the local Royal Infirmary, and the men of the depot use this infirmary, so it may well be contended that their participation as individuals—some 50 of them—in the pageant is really a subscription in kind. In the second place, there have been for many years the most friendly relations between the local regiment and the townspeople, and successions of commanding officers have done their utmost to maintain and cultivate these relations. The presence of these few men in this pageant would go much further to augment the position of friendliness which very largely prevails between the civilians and the military.
The third reason is the very long association of the regiment with the town,
which makes it extremely fitting in any celebration of the age-long history of Lancaster, one of the most important histories of any town in the United Kingdom, that some of the men of the local regiment should take part in celebrating the annals and traditions of this town. Fourthly, the participation of these men will undoubtedly benefit recruiting. The commanding officer himself writes:
I am of opinion that it will be beneficial to recruiting
and in these days I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman cannot very well overlook a consideration of that kind.
What is the objection that he makes? The objection is that the participation of these men will greatly interfere with training. May I read what the commanding officer says:
I am of opinion that, if sanctioned, there will be little interference with training. Two rehearsals will suffice, and the hours of three to six from the 4th to the 9th August will not be a serious handicap.
After all, this pageant is held once in 10 years, and perhaps not so often. Six afternoons absence from training in 10 years is all that it involves, and one of those days is a Bank holiday and another a Saturday. I should imagine that in any event the troops would not train in the afternoon. Even if they do, and there is a general willingness to play up to this pageant, surely the commanding officer would have the co-operation of the men in doing a little extra training to make up for the few hours that they have lost. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with great respect, that if he would reflect upon this further he would surely be minded to reconsider this very reasonable request, which would do a great deal of good.
I cannot help thinking that the excuse that it will interfere with training is somewhat of a flimsy and trivial nature. As regards precedents, only last year the Border Regiment took part in the Carlisle pageant, and I believe that even more recently the North Staffords took part in the Stoke pageant. Why should the men of Lancaster be singled out as an exception? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing in the way of a tattoo, and that there are no military ceremonials which would possibly instil a warlike spirit into the civilians who watch them. There is an altogether
peaceful ceremonial, and one in which the soldiers will, of course, be acting as individuals, and not performing any exciting evolutions.
I would add that the men will be fully insured, and that there will be no charge whatever on the public funds. I earnestly appeal to the Secretary of Sate for War to treat, as I know he would in his heart, this matter in a common-sense and kindly fashion, and not to be led away by some stiff-necked bureaucrat or Prussian that he has in his Department, who regards this absence from training for a few hours in one week as something that cannot be tolerated, and for which we must forego the very valuable and necessary presence of these comparatively few men.

Commander SOUTHBY: This has a much wider application than my hon. Friend's constituency. All over the country men have been allowed in the past to take part in various celebrations for local charities and for various good works, and surely it is a new departure for the Secretary of State in the most arbitrary spirit to prevent the participation of the men, who are only too anxious to give their services for good works. In very few cases are these men paid. If they choose to give their help to some pageant or some hospital celebration, they ought, as free subjects, to be allowed to do so, particularly when their commanding officer is able to give a certificate that in no way will the public service be injured. My hon. Friend has referred to the autocrat who sits on the Front Bench. What is he afraid of? If he is afraid of militarism, this is an autocratic and tyrannical action of a kind that might well be taken in the most autocratic and tyrannical of countries. I ask that we should continue to act on a precedent which has never been abused, and which is perfectly innocent, namely, that the men of His Majesty's forces should be allowed to take their part when they see fit in any good work that is going on, so long as it does not interfere in any way with their public service. I ask that we should not be swayed by an autocratic order given by a right hon. Gentleman whose zeal, however sincere, sometimes outruns his discretion.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The hon. Member who raised the question talked about the astonishing decision that was taken in the Lancaster case. Surely he knows that this decision has been communicated long before Lancaster made an application at all and that there has been no complaint that Lancaster has been singled out. He may take it for granted that the Secretary of State for War will never be tempted to minimise the importance of Lancaster under any circumstances whatever. Lancashire is as dear to me as it is to the hon. Member. My family has lived there for hundreds of years and Lancashire in my mind is not a place that is to be slighted in any way. I have heard about indignation and surprise too. I do not doubt that indignation and surprise have been aroused, if the people of Lancaster are labouring under the impression that their town has been specially selected for a slight. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing is further from the truth. He has read extracts from a letter from the officer commanding the depot. I have no knowledge whatever of that letter, but it is extraordinary that an officer in that position should not communicate his observations to his superiors.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: This is a copy of a letter written to the Quartermaster-General at Fulwood Barracks, Preston.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. SHAW: I withdraw nothing. I simply state that I will examine the matter and get to know how it is that this has never been brought to my notice. I think I have a right, as Secretary of State, when matters are to be raised in Parliament, and letters quoted, to be in possession of the letters in order that I may make inquiries before the letter is definitely quoted to the House. The very decencies of debate demand that when statements of this kind are made the responsible Minister should know in advance in order that he may check the information and be able to deal with the subject.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, and I understood from him that he had made full inquiries, and I naturally assumed that official documents of this kind would be in his possession.

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me, and I think I will quote the letter which I wrote to him in reply, in order that we may form some idea as to what has been going on. The hon. Member will perhaps forgive me, however; I have only four minutes left, and if I read the letter, it will prevent me from giving a short statement of the policy of the Department. That policy, arrived at on the advice of the responsible military members of the Army Council, is that, with the exception of definitely permitted tattoos on a large scale, these individual demonstrations of troops at depots should not be permitted on the ground that they have interfered with the training of recruits. That rule has been applied to everybody without exception. It may be that the military members are wrong, but it cannot be argued that their decision has been taken on any grounds whatever except on grounds which they consider to be in the interests of the Army.
This application was made at the end of September last. The East Lancashire Area was definitely informed on 22nd October last that the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief did not approve of the employment of troops in the way suggested, and that the final decision as to the band would rest with the Genera] Officer Commanding the Alder-shot Command. The officer was informed quite definitely that this decision was taken on the general ground that these demonstrations interfered with training. I venture to sug-
gest to hon. Members opposite that you cannot have a rule which you apply piece-meal. If you make a rule, it must be applied to all.
The decision that has been arrived at was stated by myself in the House and the House was certainly under no misapprehension as to the decision taken, because the answers were very clear and definite. They may be mistaken answers, but there is no truth in the claim that it has not been made quite definite and clear to the House that with the exception of the tattoo at Alder-shot, the tattoo at Tidworth and a tattoo at one of the commands in addition, demonstrations by depots would in future be prohibited on training grounds. I want to say, quite definitely, that there is no intention of slighting any one particular town. The decision was taken in a general way and without the least specific reference to any particular town. I am still of the opinion that the military advice tendered to me on this matter is at least as worthy of consideration as any advice that I have had on the matter from any other source. Personally, while I should very much regret the suggestion that I have been in any way discourteous to Lancaster, I cannot see my way to change the decision which has been reached.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.